Why senior US diplomat Rubio gets lost in China's translations

[WORLD] In an era where every word counts in the high-stakes game of U.S.-China relations, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s blunt assertion that Beijing’s official English translations are “never right” has sharpened the tone of Washington’s approach to diplomacy. Rubio, now the most powerful U.S. diplomat since Henry Kissinger, has urged colleagues to rely solely on original Chinese statements rather than their English counterparts. This distrust, emblematic of the current administration’s hawkish stance, raises critical questions about the future of bilateral dialogue, the reliability of cross-cultural communication, and the risks of escalating misinterpretation in a world already teetering on the brink of a new cold war.

The Translation Gap: Politics, Perception, and Power

At the heart of Rubio’s skepticism is a widely acknowledged but rarely confronted reality: official translations of Chinese foreign policy statements are not neutral linguistic exercises. They are, instead, carefully curated communications designed to shape international perceptions while maintaining domestic ideological consistency. Studies have shown that more than half of China’s foreign policy statements contain significant differences between the original Chinese and their English translations, with the latter often tailored to soften or obscure sensitive political messages. For example, terms like “propaganda” (宣传, xuan chuan) are rendered in ways that avoid negative connotations in English, and nuanced phrases about China’s global ambitions are sometimes flattened or selectively interpreted.

Rubio’s insistence on returning to the original Chinese reflects a broader shift in U.S. diplomatic strategy. Under President Trump, the administration has adopted a more confrontational, transactional approach to China, emphasizing national security and economic self-sufficiency over traditional diplomatic engagement. Rubio’s dual role as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor—a combination not seen since Kissinger—gives him unprecedented influence over U.S. foreign policy, particularly on matters related to China. His distrust of Beijing’s translations is not just a linguistic quibble; it is a political statement, signaling that Washington will no longer take at face value the narratives Beijing presents to the world.

The Risks of Misinterpretation: From Trade Wars to Tech Rivalry

The stakes of mistranslation and misinterpretation are higher than ever. As U.S.-China relations deteriorate, even minor differences in wording can have outsized consequences for trade, technology, and security policy. Recent months have seen a dramatic escalation in tariffs, with both sides imposing duties exceeding 125% on a range of goods, and the U.S. threatening anti-subsidy tariffs of up to 721% on key Chinese battery materials. These measures are not just economic tools; they are also political signals, shaped in part by how each side interprets the intentions and commitments of the other.

Rubio’s approach risks deepening the cycle of mistrust. By discounting Beijing’s official English statements and relying on in-house interpretations of the original Chinese, U.S. policymakers may become more prone to over-reading or misreading Beijing’s intentions. For example, a 2020 State Department report on China’s long-term goals was criticized for misinterpreting a key phrase in a speech by Xi Jinping, leading to exaggerated claims about China’s ambitions for global dominance. Such errors can fuel hawkish policy decisions, further alienating Beijing and reducing the space for compromise.

At the same time, China’s own translation practices are shaped by a desire to project a positive image abroad while maintaining ideological purity at home. The result is a translation gap that neither side is fully equipped to bridge. As both countries dig in, the risk of accidental escalation grows—especially in areas like technology, where misunderstandings about export controls, intellectual property, and national security can quickly spiral into broader conflicts.

The Future of Diplomatic Communication: A Cold War of Words?

Looking ahead, the breakdown in trust over translations is likely to persist and even intensify. The Trump administration’s recent moves—such as revoking visas for Chinese students with ties to the Communist Party or studying in critical fields, and increasing scrutiny on all visa applications from China and Hong Kong—signal a hardening of attitudes and a willingness to use all available tools to counter perceived threats. These measures are not just about security; they are also about controlling the flow of information and influence between the two countries.

Market trends and policy forecasts suggest that the U.S. and China are entering a period of prolonged strategic competition, with trade and technology at the center of the rivalry. The U.S. is expected to continue tightening restrictions on Chinese access to advanced technologies, while China will likely respond by limiting exports of critical minerals and tightening regulatory controls. In this environment, the ability to accurately interpret each other’s statements—and intentions—becomes a matter of national security.

The challenge for both sides is to find ways to communicate clearly and honestly, even as they compete. While Rubio’s skepticism is understandable given the stakes, a policy based solely on distrust risks closing off avenues for dialogue and increasing the likelihood of miscalculation. The translation gap is not just a linguistic problem; it is a symptom of a deeper breakdown in U.S.-China relations.

What We Think

Marco Rubio’s distrust of Beijing’s official English translations is a telling indicator of the current state of U.S.-China relations: fraught, mistrustful, and increasingly zero-sum. While his insistence on original sources may help U.S. policymakers avoid some pitfalls of mistranslation, it also risks entrenching a cycle of suspicion and misinterpretation. In a world where even minor linguistic differences can have major geopolitical consequences, both sides would be wise to invest in better cross-cultural communication—not just as a matter of diplomacy, but as a safeguard against accidental conflict. The alternative—a cold war of words—benefits no one, and the stakes are too high to leave translation to chance.