In the corridors of Washington, the influence game is nothing new. But recent revelations about foreign-owned companies leveraging familiar American brands to sway U.S. policy have cast a fresh spotlight on the complex web of money, power, and global interests shaping the nation’s political landscape. At the center of this unfolding story are iconic names like T-Mobile, GE Appliances, and Smithfield Foods—each bearing the stars and stripes in marketing, yet directed by foreign hands with agendas that don’t always align with American interests.
Take T-Mobile. According to federal disclosures cited by Complex and further analyzed by State Armor, the wireless giant has emerged as one of the biggest spenders in the influence industry. In 2024 alone, T-Mobile poured more than $10 million into lobbying federal agencies and lawmakers, employing nearly 100 lobbyists to make its case across the capital. The pace hasn’t slowed: during just the first half of 2025, the company shelled out another $5.3 million on influence campaigns, hiring a battery of powerful Washington firms to press its interests before the Federal Communications Commission, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and even the White House.
But here’s where it gets complicated. T-Mobile’s parent company, Deutsche Telekom, is partially owned by the German government. As reported by State Armor, Deutsche Telekom has a long history of entanglements with Chinese state-backed telecom giants. The company maintains partnerships with China Unicom and China Mobile, and—despite American bans for national security reasons—still uses Huawei equipment in its German 5G networks. Meanwhile, through T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom enjoys privileged access to U.S. policymakers, lobbying for regulations and decisions that could shape the future of American technology and communications.
Across the Atlantic, the story takes another turn. European telecoms, including Deutsche Telekom, are pushing aggressively for the European Union to impose “network fees” on U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. These proposed fees would require American firms to subsidize the infrastructure investments of European carriers—a move that, according to State Armor, would effectively tax U.S. innovation to benefit European incumbents, many of whom continue to use Chinese technology that’s banned stateside. The Trump administration previously opposed such non-tariff barriers, viewing them as punitive measures that unfairly target American companies while allowing Chinese firms a lighter touch.
This strategy isn’t limited to telecommunications. Consider GE Appliances. Despite its “made for America” branding, the company has been owned since 2016 by Haier Group, a Chinese conglomerate based in Qingdao. Federal records show that in 2024, GE Appliances’ U.S. arm reported lobbying activities on manufacturing and trade. This means that a Chinese state-influenced firm now speaks directly to Washington through a trusted American name—even as Beijing continues to block U.S. appliance makers from accessing its home market.
The same playbook is evident in agriculture. Smithfield Foods, once a Virginia-based American icon, is now majority-owned by China’s WH Group, even after a 2025 initial public offering. Smithfield continues to lobby U.S. regulators on food safety and trade policy, shaping rules that affect the nation’s farmers. Yet, as State Armor notes, U.S. farmers still face significant barriers to entering China’s market, raising questions about fairness and reciprocity.
These cases, taken together, expose a growing vulnerability in the American system. Foreign adversary-owned or -linked corporations can leverage their U.S. subsidiaries to lobby policymakers, shape regulations, and even influence debates over national security—all while their home governments restrict American firms’ access and act against U.S. interests. As Michael Lucci, CEO of State Armor, puts it: “Behind the logos and patriotic marketing lies foreign leverage that policymakers rarely confront.”
Meanwhile, the legal system is grappling with its own foreign influence challenges. Pras Michel, co-founder of the Fugees, was ordered to pay roughly $64 million after being convicted on charges tied to illegal foreign lobbying. According to documents obtained by Complex, a federal judge found that Michel “obtained proceeds in the amount of at least $64,923,226 from his offense.” The restitution order is linked to convictions for failing to register as an agent of China, conspiracy, and witness tampering. Michel is due to be sentenced in December 2025 and could face more than a decade behind bars.
The details of Michel’s case read like a political thriller. Prosecutors allege that in 2023, Michel funneled money through a Malaysian financier and straw donors to influence U.S. politics and aid foreign interests—a scheme that the FBI labeled as the “largest kleptocracy case to date.” Legal filings show the government sought the multi-million dollar recovery as part of its effort to reclaim illicit proceeds tied to these schemes. Michel’s team, however, disputes the scale of the financial penalties. Erica Dumas, a spokeswoman for Michel, told Complex, “They already took 100 [million] from him and now they want another 64 [million].”
Michel’s sentencing proceedings were delayed earlier this year after he underwent emergency surgery for colon cancer. Dumas said at the time, “We are hopeful for his swift healing and recovery during this challenging chapter.”
These stories underscore a broader trend: foreign-controlled corporations and actors—whether through legal, financial, or lobbying channels—have found ways to shape U.S. policy from within. As State Armor’s analysis notes, Washington often treats these entities as ordinary businesses, “ignoring that their loyalties and incentives lie elsewhere.” The concern isn’t about foreign investment or global commerce per se, but about transparency and national interest. When the German government owns a quarter of Deutsche Telekom, or when Chinese conglomerates direct the lobbying strategies of GE Appliances and Smithfield Foods, Congress and the public deserve to know whose interests are truly being represented.
Policy experts and advocates are calling for reform. Recommendations include requiring companies with significant foreign ownership—especially those tied to authoritarian states—to provide detailed reporting on control structures, Chinese partnerships, and technology dependencies under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Boilerplate filings, critics argue, are no longer sufficient. Lawmakers are also considering limits on lobbying by firms controlled by foreign adversary governments or entities with national security implications. Some states, like Texas, have already taken steps to restrict land ownership and investment in critical infrastructure by Chinese companies—a caution that, many say, should extend to influence campaigns in Washington.
Finally, there’s the principle of reciprocity. If Europe insists on network fees targeting U.S. tech firms, or if China continues to block American companies from its markets, many in Washington believe the U.S. must be prepared to respond in kind. As State Armor’s analysis puts it, “Open markets cannot be a one-way street.”
What links Deutsche Telekom, Haier, and WH Group is not just ownership, but strategy. Each uses a familiar U.S. brand to gain political access, lobby for favorable rules, and expand influence inside the world’s largest economy. The challenge for American lawmakers is to recognize this trend as a coordinated effort by foreign state-linked enterprises to shape U.S. policy from within—and to ensure that the rules of the game are clear, fair, and transparent for all.
As these debates intensify, the stakes for American sovereignty, security, and economic leadership have rarely been higher.
