Xi Mingze: All About Xi Jinping's Daughter And Why She Is In News
Xi Mingze, the only daughter of Chinese President Xi Jinping and First Lady Peng Liyuan, has been in news due to reports suggesting she may have returned to the United States to resume studies at Harvard University. News outlets picked up the story after a far-right political commentator Laura Loomer, also an ally of US President Donald Trump, claimed in a post on X that Xi "lives in Massachusetts" under the security cover of CCP guards. Here's what is known about Xi Mingze.
Early Life and Education
Born on 25 June 1992 in Fuzhou, Fujian province, Xi Mingze was raised in a politically prominent family, according to Newsweek. She attended Beijing Jingshan School and Hangzhou Foreign Language School, where she studied French. In 2010, she enrolled at Harvard University under a pseudonym to maintain privacy, graduating in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology.
Public Appearances and Philanthropy
Xi's public appearances have been rare. Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, she volunteered for a week in Hanwang, Mianzhu, participating in disaster relief efforts. In 2013, she made a public appearance with her parents in Liangjiahe village, Yan'an, Shaanxi, offering Chinese New Year greetings to locals.
"She studied all the time," Asahi Shimbun correspondent Kenji Minemura told New Yorker in 2015 about Xi's previous US stay.
Privacy and Media Attention
Xi Mingze has maintained a life away from the public eye. Her privacy has been a subject of intense protection by Chinese authorities. In 2019, a man named Niu Tengyu was arrested for allegedly leaking personal information about Xi online. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison, highlighting the government's commitment to safeguarding her privacy.
Potential Future Role
Speculation about Xi Mingze's future role in Chinese politics exists, given her family's prominence. However, there is no public indication of her political ambitions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Critical minerals will remain a problem in US-China talks. These industries are at risk.
Critical minerals will likely remain a source of leverage for Beijing in trade talks with the U.S., even if President Donald Trump's Thursday call with Xi Jinping speeds up the flow of rare earths to feed auto, industrial and other supply chains. The issue dates back to early April, when China imposed restrictions on exports of the metals as part of its retaliation against Trump's imposition of tariffs of up to 145% on its exports to the U.S. In mid May, after negotiators met in Geneva, the U.S. said China had agreed to lift the restrictions as the countries agreed to a 90-day pause on levies that were choking off trade between them. The problem is that while China is allowing exports of rare earths, used in magnets that go into automobiles, for example, companies that want to export them need licenses. Companies say they aren't easy to get, though Reuters reported on Friday that Beijing had granted temporary licenses to suppliers of the big three U.S. auto makers. Its report cited people familiar with the matter. A spokesperson from the Chinese embassy said he wasn't aware of the situation specifically related to the licensing, reiterating that the export control measures are in line with international common practices, nondiscriminatory, and not targeted at specific countries. While only a fraction of the members of the American Chamber of Commerce in China—mostly technology and industrial companies—were affected by rare-earth export restrictions, three-quarters of those said their supplies would run out within three months, according to a survey from the trade group. While the survey found that Chinese suppliers to U.S. companies had recently been granted six-month export licenses, they noted continued uncertainty because there is a large backlog of license applications. Gracelin Baskaran, a mining economist and director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said about 25% of licenses applied for have been given out, but that they aren't being processed fast enough. Part of that is due to the administrative task. China is the source of 100% of the rare-earth processing capability in the world, so it is issuing licenses for exports not just to the U.S., but for many other countries. But it could also be part of the negotiations. 'China has made it very clear it's not satisfied with the 90-day tariff pause and looking for a more durable solution to the tariff conundrum," said Baskaran, noting the deflationary impact of the tariffs on China's economy. 'It's not in their incentive to give out licenses quickly as their economy is in a downward spiral. These licenses are their leverage." The U.S. had been the dominant rare-earth producer until the 1990s, but China steadily took market share, ramping up production to levels that made it unprofitable for others, forcing them out, Baskaran said. A similar phenomenon is currently under way in nickel, she U.S. has been producing rare earths in California and is building out separation and processing capabilities, with companies like MP Materials boosting their refining abilities. 'It's a perfectly solvable problem and one the U.S. is working at warp speed to address," Baskaran said. 'It's not a forever problem." That said, it could continue be a source of pain, leaving the U.S. vulnerable in talks with China. An array of industries reliant on these critical minerals, from autos to electronics, semiconductors, and defense, are likely to suffer. Write to Reshma Kapadia at
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's ambition collides with law on sending migrants to dangerous countries
As the Trump administration ships migrants to countries around the world, it is abandoning a long-standing US policy of not sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and other persecution. The principle emerged in international human rights law after World War II and is also embedded in US domestic law. It is called "non-refoulement," derived from a French word for return. The issue came into sharp relief in the past month as the Trump administration has tried to deport migrants with criminal records to Libya and South Sudan, countries considered so dangerous that they are on the State Department 's "do not travel" list. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.68 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo "What the US is doing runs afoul of the bedrock prohibition in US and international law of non-refoulement," said Robert K. Goldman, faculty director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University's law school. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) In a recent affidavit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the Trump administration's efforts to send migrants to those two countries as part of a diplomatic push to improve relations. He acknowledged that the Libyan capital, Tripoli, was wracked by violence and instability. Live Events You Might Also Like: Trump administration proposes $1,000 fast-track fee for US tourist visas: memo To critics of the administration, the sworn statement shows that the United States is no longer considering whether a deportee is more likely than not to be at risk of abuse through repatriation or transfer to a third country. State Department employees were also recently told to stop noting in annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone "to a country where they would face torture or persecution." The State Department said in a statement that it dropped that requirement to focus the reports on "human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions." "Enforcing US immigration law, including removing those without a legal basis to remain in the United States, is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans," the statement said. You Might Also Like: Trump's ban on Harvard international students blocked by US judge A judge blocked the transfer of migrants to South Sudan, which is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the men were being held at a US military outpost in Djibouti pending more court action. The Trump administration is also in a showdown in another court over its transfer of Venezuelan deportees described as dangerous gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. "If they were sending them to Sweden, that would be a different thing than sending them to South Sudan, which is one of the most dangerous places on the planet," said Michael H. Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University's Stern School of Business. Posner, who was the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 2009 to 2013, said the United States could send someone from Cuba or Venezuela to another country if it had been determined at a hearing that the place was safe. "We should not be deporting people to third countries where they have no connections and where their lives will be in serious jeopardy," he said. You Might Also Like: Trump travel ban: Why is Trump banning millions from entering the US again? The White House likens its crackdown on illegal migration to combating a national security threat from a hostile enemy. It has pressed military troops into service at the southwestern border and at a small detention operation for migrants at Guantánamo Bay. But even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States abided by its non-refoulement obligation for prisoners it was holding at Guantánamo Bay, during a period when it flouted international law by torturing other detainees in secret overseas prisons called black sites. In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded that the United States would not repatriate Chinese citizens from the Uyghur Muslim minority who had been rounded up in the war against terrorism in 2001 and held at the military base at Guantánamo. The United States believed that the men would be at risk if they were sent to China. Eventually, in 2013, the State Department found other countries to take in all of the Uyghurs. In the past, State Department officials have essentially asked two questions to determine where a detainee could be sent: Would the destination be safe for the individual? Would the United States and its allies be safe if the person was sent there? US officials had to assess whether the receiving country could monitor the activities of the detainees to prevent them from endangering the United States or an ally. Officials were also required to assess whether a deportee would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment. The United States adopted the same approach to its efforts to send home Islamic State group members or their relatives who were being housed in camps in northern Syria. "Consistent with both long-standing policy and its legal obligations, the US government cannot send people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be mistreated," said Ian Moss, a lawyer and a former senior counterterrorism official at the State Department. In his affidavit, Rubio accused the courts that were reviewing deportation challenges of undermining US foreign policy. He also said that plans to announce "expanded activities of a US energy company in Libya" had been postponed. Rubio did not mention whether any diplomatic agreements surrounding the proposed resettlement included guarantees about how the migrants would be treated. "If these individuals are as dangerous as the administration represents them to be," Moss said, "sending them to a conflict area or country where there is a lack of capacity to manage them undermines the national security justification," Moss said. The State Department statement referred questions about "the removals process, including screening for credible or reasonable fear," to the Department of Homeland Security . The eight men who were to be sent to South Sudan were at a holding site in Texas when they were informed of their destination. An immigration division official, Garrett J. Ripa, said in a sworn statement May 23 that none of the men declared himself afraid to go. Court records showed that an immigration officer gave the men a form that listed their intended place of deportation. None signed the document. "By not signing, people are protesting being sent to a third country in the only way they know how," said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants in the case. Administration officials had previously planned to deport one of the men to Libya, which has been so unstable that Congress has since 2015 not allowed detainees who are cleared for release from Guantánamo Bay to be sent there.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lebanon Threatens To Exit Ceasefire Talks After Israel Strikes Beirut On Eid Eve
/ Jun 07, 2025, 10:48AM IST Lebanon's army has threatened to withdraw from the ceasefire monitoring body following Israeli airstrikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut's southern suburbs. The army said the strikes, which occurred just before the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, have undermined its role in maintaining the fragile truce. Although Israel issued evacuation warnings, the timing of the attacks provoked strong local outrage. Lebanese officials warned that future strikes could end their cooperation in monitoring and search efforts. They accused Israel of violating the ceasefire and bypassing official communication channels. France condemned the attacks, calling them a threat to regional stability. In a statement, French authorities urged Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory and called on all parties to honour the ceasefire signed in November.#lebanon #israel #hezbollah #MiddleEastTensions #CeasefireViolation #BeirutStrikes #EidAlAdha #LebaneseArmy #IsraelAirstrike #FranceCondemns #BlueLineCrisis #unpeacekeepers #middleeastconflict #CeasefireCrisis #RegionalSecurity
