Guests - Ava Chen, Stephen Mundt
Watch China Watch on YouTube
Ava Chen: Xi Jinping Leaves Washington Without the Taiwan Win He Wanted
China Watch Wednesday opened with Ava Chen of the New Federal State of China examining Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States and what she believes the trip revealed about both the Chinese Communist Party leader and the political pressures surrounding him.
Kathleen Winn’s first takeaway was straightforward: whatever Xi hoped to accomplish on Taiwan, he did not appear to get it.
Chen agreed, but said the trip itself contained other clues that deserved attention. According to information available to her organization before the visit, Xi had originally considered bringing a much larger delegation, including business leaders and an entourage potentially numbering well into the hundreds. Instead, the group that ultimately traveled with him was considerably smaller.
Chen attributed the change to concerns about Xi’s health.
She said his public appearance, gait and reliance on his wife for physical support reinforced reports that his health has deteriorated.
“He’s not that well,” Chen said, arguing that his ability to sustain long days of meetings, receptions and unscripted interaction may now be limited.
That concern, she said, may also help explain another unusual feature of the visit: the absence of open questioning from reporters.
Chen said her information indicated that Xi’s side requested that there be no media questioning. That would fit the public style of a Chinese leader whose speeches and appearances are normally tightly controlled and scripted.
“Everything he says is scripted,” Chen said. “You almost never see CCP leaders improvising.”
For Chen, the contrast with President Donald Trump was difficult to miss. Trump regularly speaks at length and takes questions. Xi operates within a political system where spontaneity can create risk.
Trump Takes Xi to America’s Founding Documents
Winn was particularly struck by Trump’s decision to take Xi to see the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
To Winn, the symbolism was unmistakable. The documents represent precisely the sort of constitutional limits on government that communist systems reject.
“This is America,” Winn said of the message. “This is what we stand for.”
Trump reportedly noted the relative youth of the United States compared with China’s ancient civilization, pointing to America’s roughly 250-year history.
Chen welcomed the display of American confidence but argued that the comparison needed refinement.
China’s civilization is ancient. The Chinese Communist Party is not.
The Communist Party was founded in 1921 and seized control of mainland China in 1949. Chen argued that Americans should stop allowing the CCP to wrap itself in thousands of years of Chinese history as though the party itself were synonymous with Chinese civilization.
“CCP does not represent China,” she said.
That distinction became the foundation for much of the conversation.
Ava Chen: China Is Not the Chinese Communist Party
Chen objected to routinely describing Xi as “president” in the same sense Americans understand the word.
A president in a constitutional republic receives legitimacy through an election and governs through some form of public consent. Chen argued that Xi cannot claim that kind of legitimacy.
“The people never voted for the CCP,” she said.
She prefers terms such as Communist Party leader or general secretary because, in her view, those descriptions more accurately reflect the system Xi heads.
The larger point is not semantic. Chen believes the Chinese Communist Party has successfully persuaded much of the West to treat three very different things as interchangeable: China, the Chinese people and the CCP.
They are not the same.
Chinese history, language, food, customs, religion, philosophy and traditions existed long before communism. The CCP came later and, Chen argued, appropriated that cultural inheritance to give itself legitimacy.
How the CCP Uses Chinese Culture as Political Cover
Chen pointed to what she described as a deliberate Communist Party strategy of promoting “socialist culture” internationally while presenting it to Western audiences as Chinese culture.
The difference matters.
Confucianism, Taoism, dynastic history, traditional festivals, language and food belong to Chinese civilization.
Communist ideology does not.
Chen traced the party’s global cultural strategy to decisions made more than a decade ago to expand Chinese influence abroad, including through entertainment and media.
“They know people love Chinese culture,” Chen said.
That popularity, she argued, creates a vehicle through which political influence can travel.
A Chinese New Year celebration, Mid-Autumn Festival or cultural exchange may appear entirely benign. Most participants may have no political motive whatsoever. But Chen argued that CCP-linked organizations can use the same events to cultivate elected officials, business leaders, academics and cultural figures.
Mayors and legislators attend. Photographs are taken. Relationships are established.
What looks like cultural diplomacy can also become political access.
Hollywood and the CCP’s Culture War
Chen identified Hollywood as one of the most valuable targets in that strategy because American entertainment reaches the entire world.
“Hollywood is the world culture microphone,” she said.
She argued that Beijing understood years ago that influencing the stories America tells could be more powerful than simply broadcasting Chinese government propaganda.
That influence does not necessarily require a government official standing in a studio giving orders. It can work through financing, market access, self-censorship and the fear of losing access to the Chinese audience.
Winn added that Hollywood’s overt political involvement has damaged some of its own cultural influence. Actors and actresses once enjoyed almost universal celebrity status. Today, many Americans view entertainment figures through an increasingly partisan lens.
Chen described the larger struggle as a culture war.
Her warning was that Americans who believed they were opening themselves to Chinese people and Chinese culture may also have opened institutions to communist political influence.
She connected that argument to the rise of socialism, Marxism, DEI programs and other ideological movements in the United States, which she views as part of a broader movement away from traditional American constitutional principles.
Those are Chen’s conclusions, but they illustrate the lens through which she views the CCP: not simply as a foreign government, but as an ideological organization seeking influence inside Western institutions.
Socialism and Communism: Chen Says the Difference Is One of Progression
Winn raised the growing popularity of socialism among some American voters, particularly younger voters.
Chen rejected attempts to draw a bright line between socialism and communism.
“Socialism is communism,” she said, arguing that socialism should be understood as a stage on the road toward a more centralized communist system.
She pointed to the CCP’s continued use of socialist terminology and Xi Jinping’s emphasis on “socialism with Chinese characteristics” as evidence that socialist language remains central to communist political organization.
Winn framed the American election in similarly ideological terms.
She argued that voters are increasingly choosing not simply between Republicans and Democrats but between competing views of government: individual liberty and limited government on one side, and a growing dependence on government on the other.
People have the freedom to vote for socialism, Winn said. Her warning was that once a truly authoritarian socialist system is established, people may no longer have the freedom to change their minds.
Xi Jinping, Taiwan and Pressure From Inside the CCP
The conversation returned to Taiwan and Xi’s meeting with Trump.
Chen said the American position on Taiwan appeared to remain firm after the meeting and pointed to comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and subsequent engagement with Japan as reassuring signs.
That matters because China’s neighbors watch every shift in American policy.
Chen argued that Xi needed his trip to Washington almost as much for domestic political reasons as for international diplomacy.
In her telling, Xi faces substantial resistance within the Communist Party and needs to demonstrate that he remains capable of dealing with the United States from a position of strength.
“He needs to show the party members he still got the support of the United States,” Chen said.
That made the visit partly theater.
She was skeptical of reports that China might increase purchases of American agricultural products, including soybeans. Xi has made economic promises before, she said, and Americans should judge any agreement by what Beijing actually does rather than what it announces.
“Don’t hang your hope on that,” Chen warned.
Chen: Lying Is a Survival Mechanism for the CCP
One of Chen’s strongest claims was that deception should not be viewed as an occasional flaw in communist governance but as a structural necessity.
The CCP cannot survive an open political system, she argued, because open elections, free media and unrestricted dissent would threaten its monopoly on power.
“Lying is a survival imperative for the CCP,” Chen said.
She also rejected the idea that top Communist Party officials are necessarily true believers in communist economic doctrine.
According to Chen, ideology is most useful to those leaders as a tool for controlling others.
“They only want power,” she said.
Her argument is that ordinary people may be persuaded to believe in revolutionary promises of equality, while party elites learn to manipulate those beliefs as they compete for authority.
Mao, the United Front and the Politics of Power
Chen used Mao Zedong’s rise as a historical example.
During the struggle against Japan, Chinese communists and Chinese nationalists formed a united front under intense international pressure. The nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek received support from the United States, while Mao’s communist movement received extensive support from the Soviet Union.
The official purpose was to defeat the Japanese invasion.
Chen argued that Mao also used the alliance to gain access, build intelligence networks and position the Communist Party for the later struggle against the nationalists.
In her interpretation, the lesson is not simply about Chinese history.
It is about how communist organizations use temporary alliances.
“They will agree when it is politically convenient,” Chen said.
She sees Xi operating according to the same logic: cooperate when cooperation advances power, abandon cooperation when it no longer does.
Xi’s Health, Internal Purges and the Danger of a Dictator Surrounded by Yes-Men
Winn said she believes Xi has overestimated both his power and his international position.
Chen agreed that authoritarian leaders face a recurring problem: they surround themselves with people who are afraid to tell them the truth.
“If you say something the dictator doesn’t want to hear, then you’re risking yourself,” Chen said.
That creates an information bubble.
Bad news is suppressed. Flattery is rewarded. Leaders begin believing their own mythology.
Chen argued that Xi has made enemies throughout the party through years of internal purges. Even when officials themselves are removed, their families, allies and networks remain throughout the system.
“He has a lot of enemies within the party,” she said.
Winn believes Xi may be approaching the end of his political reign, pointing to Taiwan, Iran, Russia and other areas where she believes his investments of political capital have failed to produce the results he expected.
Chen was reluctant to put a timetable on any collapse, but she agreed that Xi’s political survival is increasingly tied to remaining in power.
In a communist system, she argued, a leader who voluntarily gives up power can quickly become the next target.
What Would a Free China Look Like?
Winn asked Chen to move beyond criticism and describe the alternative.
What happens if the CCP falls?
Chen said a free China could fundamentally change global politics.
She compared it to the moment in Game of Thrones when the Night King falls and the army dependent on him collapses with him. In her view, removing the CCP would eliminate the central source behind numerous geopolitical conflicts and networks of influence.
Chen emphasized that her opposition is directed at the party, not the Chinese people.
“Chinese people are really hardworking and peace-loving people,” she said.
Her vision is a China in which citizens can speak, travel, worship and organize without fear of the state.
She argued that the new system should learn from the American model of divided power.
“The separation of power and decentralized power is the key,” Chen said.
New technologies, including blockchain, artificial intelligence and decentralized financial tools, could potentially help prevent power from being concentrated again in the hands of a single political organization.
The central lesson, however, is older than technology: no person or institution should be trusted with unlimited authority.
Chen Raises Concerns About Restrictions on Chinese Technology Workers
Chen also discussed reports that China has restricted some technology specialists from leaving the country.
She said concerns are no longer limited to highly skilled AI researchers but can extend to family members as well.
To Chen, that illustrates the difference between a free society and a system in which talented citizens ultimately remain resources of the state.
She described contemporary China as “a jail on Earth” for people who cannot freely speak, move or challenge the government.
Chen also made sweeping claims about deaths in China during the COVID era and accused Xi and the CCP of responsibility for enormous loss of life. Those figures and allegations were presented as Chen’s claims and were not independently established during the discussion.
Her broader argument was that authoritarian systems can sacrifice enormous numbers of their own citizens when leaders believe political control is at stake.
The NFSC Says the CCP Is Monitoring China Watch Wednesday
Chen then shared something that clearly delighted Winn: she said Chinese authorities monitor the New Federal State of China closely enough that Winn Tucson’s China Watch Wednesday discussions are translated and circulated internally.
“The CCP actually listens to every word we say,” Chen said.
Winn laughed at the idea.
“Great,” she replied.
Chen viewed the monitoring as evidence that the NFSC worries Beijing because its stated mission is not to negotiate accommodations with the Communist Party but to replace the system entirely.
Winn said that makes the weekly conversation more important.
The distinction between China and the CCP, she argued, is still poorly understood even among Americans who consider themselves informed about foreign policy.
The Competition for Artificial Intelligence Becomes a Competition for “Super Intelligence”
Winn closed the Chen portion by returning to another feature of Xi’s visit: the presence of America’s most powerful technology and business leaders.
She viewed that gathering as a deliberate show of American economic and technological strength.
The emerging competition over artificial intelligence, she said, is already moving toward what some technology leaders describe as superintelligence.
Whatever terminology wins, the strategic contest is enormous.
The United States, China and their allies are competing not merely for better consumer software, but for the technologies likely to shape defense, finance, communications, medicine and economic power for decades.
Winn’s message to Beijing was simple: America is not conceding that race.
Stephen Mundt: The Attempted Attack on a Dubai-to-Israel Flight Raises a Larger Security Question
After Chen’s segment, Winn turned to retired Brigadier General Stephen Mundt as details continued emerging about a serious incident involving a flight traveling from Dubai toward Israel.
Because the story was still developing, Winn repeatedly updated what she was hearing rather than presenting every early detail as settled fact.
Reports discussed during the show alleged that a member of the cockpit crew attacked another pilot and attempted to sabotage or crash the aircraft before other crew members and passengers intervened. Additional pilots reportedly helped land the plane safely.
The central fact for Winn was that the passengers survived.
She described that as miraculous.
Mundt said the larger lesson was that Americans and their allies should expect adversaries to use unconventional means when conventional military confrontation is either too dangerous or unlikely to succeed.
Mundt Warns of More “Irregular Warfare”
Mundt connected the aircraft incident to what he described as the familiar tactics of terrorist organizations and their sponsors.
“They have to do irregular warfare,” he said.
That can include aircraft, ships, vehicle attacks, bombings and other actions designed to create fear while avoiding a traditional battlefield.
Mundt said the objective is often political rather than strictly military.
An attack in Europe may be intended to pressure European governments.
An attack in an Arab country may be intended to make regional governments distance themselves from the United States or Israel.
An attack on Americans can be designed to weaken public support for foreign policy.
“They’re going to do that wherever they think they can gain leverage,” he said.
Winn asked whether those attacks should be expected only in the United States.
Mundt said no.
The battlefield, in his view, is global.
Iran, Terrorism and the Price of Walking Away
Mundt argued that Iran remains central to many of the terrorist networks threatening the United States and Israel.
He criticized the view that Washington could simply withdraw from the Middle East and expect the threat to disappear.
“Walk away and do what?” he asked.
The question, he said, is not whether Americans would prefer peace. Everyone prefers peace. The question is what happens when an adversarial regime interprets withdrawal as weakness.
Mundt also rejected arguments that Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons on the assumption that Tehran would behave like a conventional nuclear power.
He considers that a risk the United States cannot take.
The economic consequences of conflicts involving Iran and Ukraine are also real, he acknowledged, including higher energy costs. But he argued that abandoning strategic objectives simply to reduce immediate fuel prices could create far greater costs later.
China Is a Rival, Not an Ally
Mundt’s concern extended well beyond Iran.
He said U.S. policymakers increasingly make a contradictory argument about China: they describe Beijing as America’s greatest strategic threat while simultaneously treating it as though it were a normal friendly partner.
“They’re not a friend,” Mundt said. “They’re not an ally.”
Diplomacy still matters.
What he rejects is diplomacy without consequences.
The U.S.-China relationship does not have to be based on friendship, he argued. It can be based on deterrence and mutual respect.
“If I start something with this guy, bad things are going to happen,” Mundt said, describing the message an adversary should understand.
He is not convinced Beijing currently fears the consequences of unacceptable behavior enough.
Mundt Questions Plans for Large-Scale American Student Exchanges With China
One proposal particularly troubled him: sending large numbers of American students to study in China.
Mundt said he has seen too many cases in which Americans with access to sensitive institutions later became connected to Chinese influence or intelligence operations.
“How many more are we going to send over there to be trained?” he asked.
He also questioned whether American students in China would enjoy anything resembling the academic freedom Chinese students experience in the United States.
Would they be free to criticize Xi Jinping?
Would they be free to openly discuss Taiwan, Tiananmen Square or the CCP?
Winn’s answer was no.
That imbalance, Mundt argued, should be part of any conversation about educational exchange.
Mundt on the U.S. Military: Reform Matters, but So Does Experience
Winn also asked Mundt about changes underway inside the U.S. military.
As a retired brigadier general, Mundt offered a more nuanced answer than a simple defense of every Trump administration personnel decision.
He supports reform where institutions have become dysfunctional, but he questioned the wisdom of using a “sledgehammer” when a narrower tool would work.
“There are certain situations where you come in and you know it’s a safety issue,” he said. “You’ve then got to make an immediate decision and stop it.”
But he also cautioned against abruptly ending the careers of people who have served honorably for decades merely because they previously worked under another administration or because they may not agree with every political priority of the current leadership.
That included his discussion of service members caught in debates over transgender policy. Mundt emphasized that his concern was less about the cultural argument than about how government handles people who have already given years of service.
“To just terminate somebody’s career who served faithfully, I’m not sure that’s the right way to go about it,” he said.
The president has the legal authority to choose his team. Mundt’s point was about institutional cost.
Experience cannot always be replaced quickly.
Military Leaders Serve Presidents of Both Parties
Winn agreed that long military careers inevitably cross partisan administrations.
Someone who served under Joe Biden may also have served under Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
Military service, at its best, is not supposed to be partisan.
Winn argued that senior officers should be judged by whether they honor their oath, the Constitution and the law.
She praised much of Trump’s current national-security team, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance. She said Vance’s military background gives him a useful perspective and acknowledged that Pete Hegseth faces an enormous job at a dangerous moment internationally.
Her hope is that the team can bring current conflicts closer to resolution before the end of the year.
Terrorism, Vigilance and the Need to Pay Attention
Mundt returned to the aircraft incident as an example of why ordinary citizens should remain alert.
As conventional pressure grows on terrorist networks and hostile governments, he expects more attempts to use unconventional attacks.
That does not mean living in fear.
It means recognizing when something is wrong.
“Watch. Report,” Mundt said.
People are often taught from childhood to leave when a situation begins looking dangerous. The same common sense applies to public safety.
Winn connected that idea to a larger cultural problem: Americans have become desensitized to violence.
She pointed to recent deaths involving young people and growing concern about substances such as kratom. Her broader point was that dangers often exist long before the public realizes they are widespread.
There are things people know.
There are things they do not know.
And there are things they do not know they do not know.
The answer, she argued, is curiosity, attention and skepticism rather than blindly accepting one source of information.
Arizona, Virginia and the Problem of Political Authenticity
The conversation eventually moved from world affairs to state politics.
Winn asked Mundt what people outside Arizona think of Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Mundt was not complimentary. He described Hobbs as someone who presents herself as more moderate than he believes she actually governs.
That led to a comparison with Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger.
Mundt argued that Virginia lost something when Glenn Youngkin left office under the state’s gubernatorial term limits. In his view, Youngkin made concrete changes and worked more effectively across party lines.
He criticized politicians of both parties who campaign as moderates or conservatives and then govern differently after winning.
“We’ve got to look at people for who they are and what they are,” Mundt said.
Winn pointed to Democratic Sen. John Fetterman as an example of someone she often disagrees with but respects for occasionally breaking with his party.
The larger principle was consistency.
Changing an opinion after receiving new evidence is legitimate.
Pretending to hold one position to win an election and another once elected is not.
Turnout Is the Difference Between Having an Advantage and Wasting It
Winn then returned to the subject consuming much of her political work in Pima County: turnout.
She said she had personally addressed 826 letters to precinct committeemen because Republicans cannot benefit from registration advantages if their voters do not actually cast ballots.
“We have an advantage if we vote,” Winn said. “It’s not an advantage unless you vote.”
Mundt agreed.
Voters dissatisfied with national direction cannot complain afterward if they refuse to participate when given the opportunity.
“You had a chance to make sure it didn’t happen again,” he said. “You’ve got to participate.”
Gas Prices, Public Opinion and the Midterm Message
Mundt said Republicans face a messaging problem even when they can point to progress on issues such as the border, crime or housing.
Voters see the price at the gas pump every day.
Opponents understand that.
Mundt acknowledged that fuel prices matter enormously, especially to truckers, farmers and working families. He also argued that energy markets are affected by larger geopolitical realities, including wars and international supply.
His concern is that voters may react to one immediate economic pain without considering the broader consequences of changing national direction.
Winn said President Trump may need something resembling a modern fireside chat: a direct conversation explaining the strategy, the costs and why the administration believes short-term pain is necessary to achieve a better long-term outcome.
Socialism, Historical Memory and a Generation That Did Not Experience the Cold War
The conversation returned to socialism.
Winn and Mundt expressed frustration that younger Americans increasingly use the word without having lived through the Cold War or studied the consequences of communist governments.
Mundt mocked the idea of “socialism light.”
“Is that like Diet Coke?” he asked.
Their concern was that socialism sounds less threatening when stripped of its historical context.
Mundt pointed to Tiananmen Square and the treatment of Uyghurs in China as events younger Americans may know only vaguely, if at all.
Winn made a similar point about September 11.
An entire generation of college students has little or no personal memory of the attacks or of the national unity that followed.
For those who experienced it, Winn said, the immediate reaction was not partisan.
It was patriotic.
Making Political Consequences Personal
Winn and Mundt argued that ideological arguments often remain abstract until a policy failure affects someone personally.
A debate about illegal immigration sounds different when a reckless driver kills a family member.
A debate about terrorism sounds different after an attack.
A debate about drugs changes when a young person dies.
“It’s all easy to do when you speak it as somebody else’s problem,” Mundt said.
His test is simple: how would you feel if it were your family?
Winn said the country has become too desensitized to death and suffering. Public policy can easily become a contest of slogans when the actual human costs disappear behind statistics.
Arizona’s Voter Rolls and the Need for a Plan
Near the end of the show, Winn returned to election integrity in Arizona.
She raised concerns about convicted felons and noncitizens appearing on voter rolls and criticized Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over the distribution of federal conviction information to county recorders.
Winn said Maricopa County’s recorder had independently sought information from the Department of Justice and was attempting to make that information available while ballots were already close to being mailed.
She worried that county recorders would have little time to review potentially ineligible registrations before voting begins.
Mundt responded with a phrase from his engineering and military background:
“Hope is not a method.”
If there is a known vulnerability in a system, he argued, officials need a plan to correct it rather than simply hoping the number of affected records is small.
The discussion included strong claims about the status of felons and noncitizens on Arizona’s rolls. Those assertions were presented as Winn and Mundt’s concerns during the discussion and were not independently adjudicated within the conversation.
Campaign Ads, Juan Ciscomani and Political Accountability
Winn also criticized Democratic advertising against Rep. Juan Ciscomani, arguing that ads accusing him of cutting Medicaid or Medicare misrepresent votes dealing with benefits for people in the country illegally.
She described the ads as outright lies.
Mundt broadened the criticism.
Election season, he said, has reached a point where candidates and political organizations believe they can say almost anything without consequence.
Winn rejected the argument that voters can simply punish dishonesty at the ballot box after the fact.
If a misleading message succeeds in changing the result, she said, the damage has already been done.
Mundt: This Election Is Critical
Mundt ended with an appeal that deliberately crossed party lines.
“This election is critical,” he said.
His message was not simply “vote Republican.”
“You need to vote with what you believe is best for this country,” Mundt said. “I don’t care what party you’re with. I don’t care what county you’re in. I don’t care what color, race, sex. I don’t care.”
The obligation, in his view, is participation.
Winn agreed and said freedom requires more than posting opinions online or attending a rally. It requires sustained civic work: registering voters, turning them out, understanding ballot issues and following through.
Iran, Energy Costs and the Case for Explaining the Mission
Mundt returned one final time to Iran.
He believes the administration needs to explain directly to Americans why current policy is necessary, particularly when voters feel the effects through energy prices and economic uncertainty.
If the goal is preventing an Iranian nuclear capability and weakening terrorist organizations, he argued, the White House should say so plainly.
Temporary pain requires a clear explanation.
Winn used pregnancy and childbirth as an analogy: the difficult period is endured because there is a meaningful outcome at the end.
She argued that the current economy contains signs of strength alongside the pain voters feel, including employment and industrial investment.
The political challenge is persuading voters that the long-term strategy is worth allowing to continue.
Reindustrializing America Means Rebuilding the Middle Class
Mundt said one of the most underappreciated parts of the current economic debate is reindustrialization.
America spent decades moving production overseas because foreign goods were cheaper and consumers grew accustomed to disposable products.
That model came with a cost.
“We need to build in America,” Mundt said.
He argued that the country needs domestic manufacturing, quality products and workers earning enough to sustain families.
Without production capacity, there is no durable middle class.
Without a middle class, he warned, society begins separating into people with tremendous wealth and people with very little.
That creates political instability and makes radical ideas more attractive.
“The middle class literally holds that together,” Mundt said.
Congress Needs to Do Its Job
The conversation ended with frustration toward Congress itself.
Mundt criticized a legislative culture in which lawmakers can fail to pass budgets on time, spend only a few days each week in Washington and still consider the job complete.
“There’s no place else in America that you can work the way you do in Congress and get paid,” he said.
“They need to buck up and do their job.”
Winn agreed.
She pointed to Speaker Mike Johnson’s planned visit in support of Ciscomani and said Republicans in Pima County intend to continue fighting for every seat.
Her objective is simple: turnout, accountability and no complacency.
With just over a month remaining before Election Day, Winn closed China Watch Wednesday with the same message that connected nearly every subject discussed—from Beijing to Tehran to Tucson.
Power has consequences.
So does apathy.