A quiet marriage in Jamaica in 2017 connected the worlds of American progressive activism and a shadowy network of Chinese influence. Jodie Evans, co-founder of the prominent anti-war group Code Pink, wed Neville Roy Singham, a tech millionaire whose wealth would soon fuel a complex web of funding for far-left causes and, disturbingly, Chinese propaganda efforts.
The connection, initially overlooked, has now been laid bare by a detailed investigation. It reveals that Code Pink, long presented as a champion of peace, has become deeply entangled with a benefactor actively working to advance the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. The narrative of an independent anti-war movement crumbles under the weight of financial ties and coordinated messaging.
Evans, a veteran of Democratic campaigns – managing Jerry Brown’s 1992 presidential bid and hosting fundraisers for Barack Obama – brought decades of political experience to the partnership. Singham, having amassed a fortune from his software company, possessed the resources to amplify a particular ideological agenda on a global scale. Their union wasn’t simply personal; it was a strategic alignment.
The New York Times investigation exposed a meticulously constructed influence campaign. Singham isn’t merely a donor; he’s a central figure orchestrating a flow of hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations that blend progressive advocacy with talking points directly aligned with the Chinese government. This isn’t about genuine grassroots movements; it’s about manufactured consent.
The financial pipeline is intricate, utilizing a network of nonprofits and shell companies to obscure its origins. Groups like No Cold War, initially presented as concerned about climate change and racial injustice, are revealed as vehicles for disseminating Chinese propaganda. Code Pink itself has undergone a transformation, shifting from criticizing China’s human rights record to defending its policies, including the internment of Uyghurs.
Since 2017, over $1.4 million – a significant portion of Code Pink’s funding – has flowed from organizations linked to Singham. The money travels through seemingly innocuous channels, including a UPS store nonprofit and a charitable conduit offered by Goldman Sachs, masking its ultimate source and intent. The scale of the operation is staggering.
The extent of Singham’s influence is further illustrated by his close ties to Chinese media. He shares office space in Shanghai with a company explicitly dedicated to “telling China’s story well” – a euphemism for propaganda. Job postings reveal a focus on producing content for “global networks of popular media and progressive think tanks,” effectively weaponizing information.
This network extends beyond financial support. Singham’s influence is evident in the rapid mobilization of protests, such as those following reports of U.S. activity in Venezuela. Within hours of the news breaking, organizations linked to Singham were disseminating narratives and coordinating demonstrations, demonstrating a level of pre-planning and coordination that defies organic emergence.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist group advocating for the dismantling of American capitalism, has emerged as a key player in these orchestrated events. Singham’s funding has enabled the PSL to organize riots, print signage, and provide trained spokespeople, effectively turning street protests into instruments of political disruption. They openly celebrate those involved in unrest as “heroes.”
The pattern is undeniable: a consistent flow of Chinese money to anti-American radicals who then actively work to destabilize the United States. This isn’t simply about ideological disagreement; it’s a deliberate effort to undermine American sovereignty and promote a foreign power’s agenda. The implications are profound and demand scrutiny.
The story of Jodie Evans and Neville Roy Singham is a stark warning. It reveals how easily ideological movements can be co-opted and manipulated by foreign interests, and how crucial it is to examine the sources of funding and the underlying motivations of those who claim to speak for peace and justice.
