Indiana Bans Sister-City Agreements With China, Other ‘Foreign Adversaries’

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) speaks to the media with members of the Republican Study Committee about Iran in Washington on April 21, 2021. Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

Lawmakers in Indiana have implemented a ban on sister-city agreements with countries deemed “foreign adversaries,” of the United States, most notably with China.

This comes amid growing concerns over foreign powers’ influence on local U.S. governance and diplomacy. Other foreign adversaries included in the amendment, which added the ban, include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.

Spearheaded by Democrat State Rep. Mitch Gore, the legislation aims to scrutinize and limit the extent of soft power exerted by these nations through seemingly benign cultural and economic exchanges.

“I know (the agreements) are usually billed as ways to exchange culture and goodwill. And while that may be true for the majority of them, I think that sister-city agreements with countries listed as foreign adversaries deserve a little more scrutiny,” said Mr. Gore, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle. “It’s a method by which these countries can exert some soft power and try to influence American policymakers.”

The state has a total of 19 sister-city agreements with Chinese counterparts, two with Russian cities, and one with a Cuban city, according to a list from the Indiana chapter of Sister Cities International.

Legislative Background

The prohibition was introduced as a part of a larger bill initially focused on property taxes but later expanded to address issues of state and local administration.

This legislative effort was influenced by a Washington Post report that highlighted China’s intensified diplomatic outreach to local U.S. leaders, exemplified by a 2023 trip to China by former Carmel, Indiana Mayor Jim Brainard.

Mr. Brainard’s visit, which included ratifying a sister-city agreement with Xiangyang, China, underscored the potential for such arrangements to serve broader geopolitical aims.

The city’s new mayor, Sue Finkam, withdrew from the United States Heartland China Association (USHCA) after she took office on Jan. 1, 2024, despite Mr. Brainard’s defense of the agreements as platforms for dialogue and cultural exchange.

Her decision was influenced by a letter from U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) urging the disentanglement of the city from the Chinese Communist Party, primarily justified by the annual membership fee of $25,000.

Mr. Banks praised Ms. Finkam’s action as a significant stance against prioritizing the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.

Security Concerns and Legislative Support

The ban has garnered support from various quarters, notably from Mr. Banks, who has been vocal about the need to curb the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the state. Mr. Banks is a member of the U.S. House Select Committee on the CCP.

Banks has criticized the CCP’s strategic use of sister city agreements to infiltrate and influence American policymaking.

“The (Chinese Communist Party) pushes sister city agreements to get a foothold here, not to help Indiana,” Mr. Banks said in a statement to the Capital Chronicle. “I’m glad that state lawmakers are focused on ridding Communist Party influence from our state, whether that means banning (agricultural) land purchases or cooperative agreements with our foremost adversary.”

The legislation reflects a broader concern among lawmakers about the ways in which foreign adversaries can leverage local partnerships to further their strategic interests.

Opposition and Debate

Despite the support, the legislation has faced criticism from local government representatives who argue that it constitutes undue state interference in matters that are often pursued for specific local benefits, such as cultural exchange and economic development.

Jenna Bentley, representing Accelerate Indiana Municipalities, highlighted the diverse reasons municipalities enter into these agreements, from cultural to economic motivations, according to the Capital Chronicle.

Mr. Brainard told local outlet “Current in Carmel” that the congressman’s response to the Washington Post story and his visit to China were “symptomatic of the dumbing down of America.”

“Representative Banks’ response is simply immature and impractical,” Mr. Brainard said. “China and the United States make up the two largest economies in the world. We have to have a dialogue, and we need to have it at all levels. It doesn’t mean we back down on anything that’s important, but it’s critical that we continue to talk at all levels, not just the state department.”

Ambiguities and Implementation

The law’s impact remains a subject of debate, with ambiguities surrounding its retroactive application and its effect on existing sister-city agreements.

While the legislation prohibits entering into new agreements with designated adversaries, it is unclear whether it mandates the termination of current ones.

This lack of clarity has prompted calls for legal interpretation and possibly further legislative action.

Proponents maintain the ban is meant to be retroactive, but they note that this year’s legislative action doesn’t affect Indiana’s sister-state agreement with the Chinese province of Zhejiang.

The Capital Chronicle notes Indiana has maintained the sister-state agreement since 1987, according to an Indiana Economic Development Corp. document from the Gov. Mike Pence era, which was signed under former Gov. Robert Orr’s administration.

Mr. Gore said he filed the amendment to ban the sister cities with foreign adversaries the day after the Washington Post story was published, noting he would like to see the state of Indiana cancel the agreement “on its own,” but he was not opposed to “re-addressing it” in the next session of the legislature.

Indiana’s ban on sister-city agreements with foreign adversaries marks a shift in the state’s approach to international diplomacy and local governance.

While proponents argue that it is necessary to safeguard against foreign influence, critics warn that it could stifle valuable cultural and economic exchanges.

This legislation reflects broader national concerns about the influence of foreign powers, particularly China, on local governments within the United States.