GOP governor hopeful pushes anti-China policy after years of Chinese investments
New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli invested in Chinese companies, including an organization that owns U.S. farmland and companies with ties to the Chinese military and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a Fox News Digital review of financial disclosures found.
New Jersey state Sens. Doug Steinhardt and Michael Testa sponsored a bill in 2023 that would restrict "all ownership of agricultural land in state by foreign governments and persons." Ciattarelli told New Jersey voters at a town hall on Thursday that he would sign the bill into law if elected.
"No foreign entities should be able to buy our farmland," Ciattarelli said.
While Ciattarelli said, as governor, he would advocate in the New Jersey legislature against foreign entities owning U.S. farmland, financial disclosures from 2015, 2016 and 2021 revealed the New Jersey Republican's investments in WH Group, a Chinese company that acquired about 146,000 acres of U.S. farmland when they bought Smithfield Foods for approximately $4.7 billion in 2013.
Ciattarelli disclosed his 2021 investments in WH Group during his second unsuccessful campaign for New Jersey governor. Ciattarelli was the Republican nominee for governor in 2021 but ultimately lost to incumbent Gov. Phil Murphy, D-N.J., who is term-limited this year.
"I would hope that counties that have open space funds would beat foreign entities to the farmland and make sure it stays preserved as open space. Until we can sign a law into place, we should know the intentions of any foreign entity when it starts buying up our land," Ciattarelli said Thursday.
The Smithfield Foods CEO confirmed in March 2025 that WH Group, the largest pork company in the world, has seen ownership of U.S. farmland down about 40% in the past two years, from a high of about 145,000 acres to about 85,000 acres.
As a businessman, Ciattarelli has a long and diverse portfolio of investments. In addition to WH Group, Ciattarelli has disclosed investments in Chinese companies that include China National Offshore Oil Corporation Limited, Ping An Insurance, China Lodging Group Limited, China Mobile Limited, Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited, NetEase, Inc., and China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited.
Ciattarelli's financial disclosures filed April 3, 2025, revealed he has since divested from these Chinese companies. When reached by Fox News Digital for comment, his campaign declined to explain why he had divested.
One of those companies, the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), was added in 2021 to the Entity List by the Department of Commerce, which restricts trade, for threatening national security "by helping China intimidate neighbors in the South China Sea."
In 2024, the Department of Defense identified China Mobile as one of several "Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States." Trump signed an executive order in 2020, restricting U.S. investments that finance the "People's Republic of China's military-industrial complex," which included China Mobile.
The New York Times also reported in 2018 on the Chinese Communist Party's increased control and influence at Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited. Sinopec is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world and a state-owned enterprise run by the Chinese government.
A campaign spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Ciattarelli's financial advisor manages his investment portfolio.
"This is old news - literally from years-old filings that have been public for a long time," Chris Russell, a spokesperson for Ciattarelli's campaign, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "In fact, four years ago, one of Jack's opponents tried to attack him on this, and it fell completely flat. That his current opponents are recycling these same lame attacks proves how desperate they are to breathe life into their dead campaigns. The truth is that, just like millions of other New Jerseyans, Jack allows his professional financial advisor to manage his investment portfolio. Voters understand how that works."
Ciattarelli launched his third consecutive Republican gubernatorial campaign in April 2024. He is a businessman and entrepreneur who held local offices on the Raritan Borough Council, the Somerset County Freeholder Board and in the New Jersey State Assembly.
His Republican primary challengers include conservative media commentator Bill Spadea, State Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac and a contractor from Burlington County, Justin Barbera. The New Jersey primary will be on June 10.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
If Clarence Thomas Resigns Under Trump, Here's Who Might Replace Him
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. There is speculation within the legal community over whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will retire during Donald Trump's presidency, given he is currently 76 years old. Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old, sparking similar speculation about his future as well. According to Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman, there are six judges in the U.S. who are likely to be considered by President Trump if either justice resigns. Feldman told Newsweek that the possibility of either judge retiring is "unlikely but possible." "Neither are terribly old by Supreme Court standards, both are in their mid-70s, but Thomas will be 80 around the end of Trump's term. Neither have major health issues, at least those that have been made public. If they have confidence that the next president will be a Republican then they have incentive to stay," said Feldman. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, January, 20, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Pool Photo via AP Why It Matters President Trump has already picked three out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. If he had the opportunity to pick two more justices, his presidency and worldview could have a lasting impact on the future of US law long beyond the next three and a half years. However, Justice Barrett has not always ruled in the Trump administration's favor recently, showing that appointing a judge does not guarantee their support from the bench. What To Know Supreme Court seats are lifetime and supposedly apolitical appointments, but justices occasionally retire during the term of a president who aligns with them politically in order to ensure their legacy is retained by the court. For example, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to retire during the Obama administration before passing away under Trump, meaning her seat is now occupied by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is significantly more conservative in her interpretation of the law than Ginsburg. "Ginsburg's light on the risk of waiting too long to step down. Since both Thomas and Alito have a lot of sway on the direction of the Court's outcomes, I don't foresee either stepping down unless there is another reason, [for example] health or fear that a Democrat will win the next election, that motivates them," Feldman told Newsweek. According to Feldman, the six judges who are likely to be tapped for consideration are judges Patrick J. Bumatay, Aileen M. Cannon, James C. Ho, Andrew S. Oldham, Neomi J. Rao and Amul R. Thapar. Trump has said in the past that he wants to appoint "more justices like the ones I already picked," so Feldman, creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog, analyzed decisions and written statements made by the prospective judges and compared them to Trump's picks: Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. He also compared their decisions to those made by Thomas and Alito, examining the language and citations used in their work to determine how it would appeal to the president. According to Feldman's research, Judge Andrew Oldman, who currently is in a Trump-appointed role for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is the most similar to Trump's picks, whereas Judge James Ho is the most similar to Alito and Thomas. Despite ruling in the President's favor several times, including blocking lawmakers from reading the Jack Smith report into Trump's handling of classified documents, and currently being the presiding judge in the case surrounding the second assassination attempt on the president in 2024, Cannon appears to be the furthest away from the Trump appointees and Alito and Thomas. She is one of the most frequent users of "hot-button" words in her writing, including "tyranny," "culture," "elite," and "freedom." These are terms Feldman has singled out as appealing to Trump. However, she does not possess the same qualities as other potential candidates, such as clerking for a Supreme Court judge. Feldman told Newsweek: "My best guess is that Trump would appoint her to a federal appellate court first and nominate another judge (Ho for instance) if there is a SCOTUS vacancy soon although the Cannon likelihood goes up if there is a vacancy towards the end of Trump's term." According to Feldman's metrics, the most likely pick to replace Thomas is Ho, and the most likely pick to replace Alito is Oldham. U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the... U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. More Chip Somodevilla/Getty images picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images What People Are Saying Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek in a previous article: "I see absolutely no reason to believe Clarence Thomas will step away from the bench until either he physically is unable to continue with his work, or he is assured that a handpicked successor will be confirmed without incident." Adam Feldman told Newsweek: "With the recent news that Trump is unhappy with Barrett in particular I think he is likely to pick someone who has a more pronounced judicial track record (Barrett's was minimal) that conveys a more conservative bent. That is why my sense is that Judge Ho is the most likely nominee if there is a vacancy. He is about as much a surefire bet to fit the Alito/Thomas paradigm and he clerked for Thomas which adds to his pedigree." Adam Feldman wrote in his Legalytics Substack: "My sense still is that Judge Ho is the obvious pick if Justice Thomas is the next justice to step down and Judge Oldham likely gets the nod if Justice Alito is the first to leave SCOTUS as recent history has shown that presidents may look first to a justice's former clerk to as a replacement if possible." What Happens Next Neither Alito nor Thomas have said they are thinking about retiring. Early in his career, Thomas threatened to quit over his salary. However, that has now been raised. Were either justice to pass away or retire, the president will pick a replacement justice who will be voted on by the Senate.
an hour ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
China Feuds With US Ally Over Fighter Jet Intercept
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. China and Japan—a treaty ally of the United States—engaged in finger-pointing after their military aircraft had close encounters while conducting operations over the Pacific Ocean. Beijing accused Tokyo of "intruding" into the training area of its naval fleet, while Japan asserted that Chinese fighter jets deliberately flew in close proximity to its patrol aircraft. Newsweek has contacted the Chinese and Japanese foreign ministries for comment via email. Why It Matters Japan has been monitoring the Chinese navy—the largest in the world by hull count—in the western Pacific Ocean as the Northeast Asian country forms part of the first island chain, a defensive line of islands intended to contain China's navy under a U.S. maritime strategy. China has deployed both of its aircraft carriers—CNS Liaoning and CNS Shandong—to the east of the first island chain since June 7. Japan's military reported that its patrol aircraft was intercepted by fighter jets launched from the Shandong while conducting surveillance. What To Know Regarding the aerial intercept incidents reported by Japan the previous day, Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at a news conference on Thursday that the two countries' defense departments "are in communication through existing channels." A Chinese J-15 fighter jet flying near a Japanese P-3C patrol aircraft over the Pacific Ocean on June 8. A Chinese J-15 fighter jet flying near a Japanese P-3C patrol aircraft over the Pacific Ocean on June 8. Japanese Defense Ministry However, the Chinese official blamed Japan's "close-in reconnaissance" of China's routine military activities for creating what he described as "maritime and air security risks" and urged the Japanese military to stop such dangerous actions by its vessels and aircraft. Meanwhile, an unnamed spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Japan reiterated a statement from the Chinese navy, saying the dual aircraft carrier deployment in the western Pacific Ocean was part of routine training and did not "target any specific country or objective." The Chinese spokesperson accused the Japanese patrol aircraft of "seriously disrupting" the training by approaching the aircraft carrier. The official said, "China conducted professional and standardized on-site handling in accordance with laws and regulations." In Japan, General Yoshihide Yoshida, the chief of the Joint Staff, told media that the approach by Chinese fighter jets toward the Japanese patrol aircraft was not accidental, saying the two incidents lasted for 40 and 80 minutes, respectively, and occurred on two consecutive days. Tokyo expressed serious concern to Beijing and requested measures to prevent a recurrence, said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi, the Japanese government's spokesperson, at a news conference. He added that Japan would defend its territory, airspace and waters. Chinese aircraft carriers CNS Liaoning, top, and CNS Shandong, bottom, conducting flight operations with J-15 fighter jets in the western Pacific Ocean in early June. Chinese aircraft carriers CNS Liaoning, top, and CNS Shandong, bottom, conducting flight operations with J-15 fighter jets in the western Pacific Ocean in early June. Chinese military What People Are Saying Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Thursday: "China's activities in relevant waters and airspace are consistent with international law and international practices." An unnamed spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Japan said on Thursday: "China urges Japan to stop dangerous actions that interfere with China's training activities and to avoid causing unexpected incidents." General Yoshihide Yoshida, the chief of the Japan Joint Staff, said on Thursday: "If we relax our posture, we will encourage attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by (China's) force." Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, said on Thursday: "The unusual approach of a Chinese military aircraft could provoke an accidental collision." What Happens Next Japan is likely to continue its surveillance of Chinese military activities near its territory as China's navy and air force expand their reach and presence across the wider Pacific Ocean.
