习近平访美期间抗议者遭袭事件调查纪实
《在野党》特刊记者 缪青报道
作者：缪青
2026年9月24日，美国华盛顿特区。
中共党魁习近平窜访美国期间，其夫人彭丽媛与美国第一夫人梅拉尼娅共同前往史密森尼国家亚洲艺术博物馆参观。公开报道显示，当天博物馆外聚集了欢迎人员以及不同立场的抗议者，现场出现了中美两国旗帜和不同政治诉求的标语。
然而，在这场受到国际社会关注的访问活动之外，一场围绕中国政治表达而发生的现场袭击冲突，同样值得追问：
首先，这些亲共的集会人群，现场人员是谁组织的？是谁实施了对民主抗议者的攻击行为？现场统一佩戴相同款式鸭舌帽的墨镜男，他们的真实身份是谁？他们手中的黑色长柄雨伞又究竟是什么？
这些问题，至今仍有许多细节有待美国有关部门进一步调查。
民主和平抗议者集会现场（图片来源网络）
一、从抗议现场到辣椒喷雾
记者事后采访了在现场的中国民主党党员，民主党河南工委主任蔡晓丽女士，据她提供的叙述，攻击行为发生了多次，最激烈一次是发生在彭丽媛参观博物馆期间。
当中国民主人士在博物馆外围，和平表达反对中共一党专政的政治诉求时，她和其他抗议者忽然遭到身份不明人员攻击，攻击者是一群统一戴着墨镜，口罩，鸭舌帽的人，他们推搡、拉扯，并有人使用辣椒喷雾对现场抗议者眼部进行攻击。
据另一现场当事人，中国民主党党员，民主党旧金山支部主任郭鉴鑫介绍，喷射动作非常迅速，训练有素，辣椒喷雾器藏在衣袖处，他们中有人撑开黑色长柄雨伞负责掩护，有人在掩护下实施攻击。现场抗议者中有人的眼部，在数秒之内连续遭到喷射。他还称，同时现场有人被掐脖子、拖拽。
这些说法目前主要来自现场当事人的陈述。究竟谁实施了喷射、谁首先动手，以及是否存在统一组织指挥，仍应由现场视频、警方记录、医疗记录以及其他独立证据予以确认。
但一个值得关注的事实是：类似的冲突并非第一次出现在习近平访美相关活动中。
口罩墨镜男袭击抗议者网络截图
二、2023年旧金山：冲突已经留下记录
2023年11月习近平赴美国旧金山参加APEC峰会期间，大批亲共支持者从美国不同地区前往旧金山举行活动。
公开报道显示，美国亚裔社团联合总会主席陈善庄曾从纽约前往旧金山组织欢迎活动。相关报道和研究资料称，他负责动员、运输纽约地区的支持者，并在现场使用对讲机等方式进行组织。
《纽约时报》相关报道还指出，2023年习近平访问旧金山期间，陈善庄组织团体欢迎习近平，现场活动后来发生了支持者与抗议者之间的冲突；陈善庄本人也曾被拍摄到与抗议者发生争执。
这意味着，2026年的华盛顿现场并不是孤立事件。
至少从公开资料来看，一条值得关注的线索已经出现：
习近平访美——海外侨团动员——亲共团体与民主抗议者同时出现——双方发生冲突。
这条线索值得美国执法部门和新闻机构继续调查。
三、“欢迎习近平”的人群究竟代表多少真实民意？
另一个值得追问的问题，是习近平访问美国期间出现的大规模亲共欢迎人群。
2026年9月23日，纽约等地闽籍侨团组织人员前往华盛顿欢迎习近平。公开报道显示，参加活动的侨团包括美国福建同乡会、美国福建三山会、美国福建联合总会等多个组织。陈善庄接受采访时也表示自己是提前数日抵达华盛顿参加欢迎活动。
类似的组织动员并不是第一次。
2023年习近平访问旧金山期间，陈善庄也曾公开表示，有来自纽约的50多个机构、超过1000人前往加州欢迎习近平。
与此同时，一些海外媒体曾报道并证实，参与者可以获得交通、食宿和现金补贴。但有关具体金额和资金来源的说法主要来自媒体报道、现场人士及匿名知情人，并没有得到美国政府公开调查结论的全面证实。
因此，一个更加准确的问题不是简单地说“所有欢迎者都是花钱雇来的”，而是：这些欢迎队伍中究竟有多少人是自发参加？多少人由侨团组织？是否存在统一交通、食宿或现金补贴？资金来自哪里？组织者与中国驻美外交机构之间是什么关系？
这些问题都可以通过银行记录、车辆租赁记录、微信群通知、活动组织文件以及美国有关部门调查得到进一步确认。
亲共团体组织者陈善庄（图片来源网络）
四、同乡会：文化组织还是政治动员网络？
中国海外同乡会本身并不等于政治组织。
许多华人同乡会长期承担联络乡亲、慈善、文化交流和社区服务等功能。
但另一方面，中国官方公开资料也显示，中国共产党长期高度重视海外华侨华人工作。
新华社曾刊载习近平在福建工作期间有关海外侨务和统战工作的材料，其中明确提到加强与海外华侨华人的联络、团结海内外闽籍乡亲，以及发挥侨务工作作用。
一个合乎逻辑的推断，这些海外同乡会是否已经是中共的海外代理人组织？海外同乡会是否已经接受中共的直接指挥？
当某些侨团在政治人物访美期间能够迅速跨州动员大量人员、组织车辆、安排住宿，并集中出现在特定地点时，其组织能力和资金来源同样值得公共监督！
民主社会政治活动最重要的原则之一，就是：谁组织，谁出资，谁指挥，谁负责！
五、陈善庄与中国官方体系的公开联系
陈善庄的身份及其与中国官方体系之间的公开联系，也值得放在这一背景下观察。
福建官方媒体2024年报道，陈善庄曾以海外侨胞身份回国参加全国政协十四届二次会议，并受到福建当地侨联及地方政府官员接待。报道还介绍他担任美国亚裔社团联合总会主席同时兼任美国福州琅岐联合总会创会会长。
一些美国媒体和研究机构则长期关注陈善庄在美国华人社团中的政治影响力，以及他参与组织习近平访美欢迎活动的情况。
这些公开事实可以说明他的政治和侨团活动具有一定影响力，但是否足以证明他是“中共海外代理人”，仅凭政治立场或者参加欢迎活动不能作出结论，这需要依据美国法律意义上的证据和正式立案调查，
六、最神秘的“墨镜男”
回到现场。
抗议者拍摄的视频和照片中，可以看到一些墨镜男携带黑色长柄雨伞。
据现场民主人士中国民主党党员旧金山支部主任郭鉴鑫介绍，在现场的抓扯中有人拿到了这种雨伞，这种雨伞是特制的雨伞，手感很沉，中间的雨伞柄是钢制实心的，与中国国内重大政治活动中安保人员使用的黑色雨伞十分相似，与北京天安门巡逻的中央特勤局使用的警用器具也十分类似，兼有现场遮蔽与攻击功能。
网络上还有说法称，这可能是所谓“警棍伞”或特殊安保器械。
但是，截至目前，没有可靠公开证据能够证明此次华盛顿现场出现的黑色雨伞都属于中国警卫部门。因此我们必须客观的说，携带相似雨伞不能证明其持有者身份属于中国安保系统。
“墨镜男”真正值得调查的，不是它携带的什么器械，而是：谁携带？谁购买？谁组织？谁授权？是否有人使用器械攻击抗议者？是否存在来自中共官方人员的指挥？
这些问题都需要后期通过视频、现场证人、警方调查以及物证得到答案，那么所谓“墨镜男”的真正来历自然会水落石出。
“墨镜男” 与中共特勤局使用的警用器具十分类似（图片来源网络）
七、如果跨国镇压发生在美国，性质就完全不同
中国境内的政治异议人士面对的是中国国内的政治和司法体系。
但这在美国，美国是一个拥有宪法第一修正案、保护言论自由和和平集会权利的国家。
任何人，无论支持习近平还是反对习近平，都可以表达自己的政治立场；任何人也不能因为政治观点不同，就在美国街头遭受暴力攻击。
因此，如果最终调查确认，有人因为政治立场而遭到一个外国政府有组织地攻击、威胁或者骚扰抗议者，那么问题就不再只是一次普通的街头冲突，而可能涉及美国刑事法律、民事责任以及外国政府跨境影响活动等多个层面。
这也是所谓“跨国镇压”问题受到美国社会关注的原因。
真正的调查目标，不应该是简单给某一个人贴标签，而应该追问背后的事实：
亲共同乡会与中共的关系？有没有资金？有没有指挥？有没有来自外国政府的参与？有没有违法行为？打人事件谁应该承担责任？
抗议者人群里的疑似中共特工（图片来源网络）
抗议者人群里的疑似中共特工（图片来源网络）
结语：让事实揭开“墨镜男”的面纱
从旧金山到华盛顿，从2023年到2026年，习近平访美期间海外华人社会中出现的“欢迎”与“抗议”，已经成为美国华人社区政治生态中的一个特殊现象。
一边是由多个亲共侨团组织的欢迎队伍；
另一边是来自中国大陆、香港、台湾以及海外的民主、人权和反共人士。
两种完全不同的政治声音，在美国土地上发生碰撞，本身就是一个值得记录的时代切片。
但美国的答案不能是“谁的声音更大”，更不能是“谁的人更多”。
答案只能是：法律面前人人平等。
如果有人组织暴力，就调查组织者；
如果有人实施攻击，就追究实施者；
如果有人非法接受外国政府指挥或资金，就依法调查；
而对于“墨镜男”“黑雨伞”以及背后的组织网络，最有价值的问题始终只有一个：
他们究竟是谁？
答案不应该由政治口号决定，而应该由视频、证人、物证、资金流和美国执法部门的调查来揭开。
只有事实，才能真正揭开“墨镜男和他们的雨伞”的秘密。 真正需要维护的，是所有人在美国法律框架下和平表达意见的权利。
《在野党》旧金山记者站 09/27/26
编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰
Unveiling the Sunglasses-Wearing Man’s Umbrella
A Fact-Finding Report on the Attack on Protesters During Xi Jinping’s Visit to the United States
Reported by Miao Qing, Special Correspondent for The Opposition Party
Author: Miao Qing
September 24, 2026, Washington, D.C., United States. During the CCP chief Xi Jinping’s sneak-visit to the United States, his wife Peng Liyuan and American First Lady Melania Trump jointly visited the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art. Public reports indicate that on that day, welcoming crowds as well as protesters holding different stances gathered outside the museum, where flags of both China and the United States alongside banners representing various political demands were present on-site. However, beyond this visit covered under international spotlight, an on-site violent conflict involving physical attacks centered around Chinese political expression likewise deserves deeper questioning: First of all, regarding these pro-CCP rally crowds, who organized the personnel on the ground? Who executed the acts of assault against democratic protesters? Who are these men wearing sunglasses and identical baseball caps on-site, and what are their true identities? Furthermore, what exactly are those long-handled black umbrellas held in their hands? As for these questions, many details still await further investigation by relevant U.S. authorities.
I. From the Protest Site to Pepper Spray
Afterward, the reporter interviewed China Democracy Party members who were present at the scene, including Ms. Cai Xiaoli, Director of the Henan Working Committee of the China Democracy Party. According to the narrative she provided, the acts of assault occurred multiple times, with the most violent one occurring during Peng Liyuan’s visit to the museum.
When Chinese pro-democracy figures were on the perimeter of the museum peacefully expressing political demands opposing the Chinese Communist Party’s one-party dictatorship, she and other protesters were suddenly attacked by unidentified individuals. The attackers were a group of people wearing matching sunglasses, face masks, and baseball caps. They shoved and pulled at the protesters, and some used pepper spray to attack the eyes of protesters on-site.
According to another party involved at the scene, China Democracy Party member and Director of the Democracy Party’s San Francisco Branch Guo Jianxin, the spraying actions were extremely rapid and well-trained, with the pepper spray canisters hidden at their sleeves. Among them, some opened long-handled black umbrellas to provide cover, while others carried out attacks under that cover. The eyes of some protesters on-site were sprayed repeatedly within a few seconds. He also stated that simultaneously, people at the scene were put in chokeholds and dragged.
These assertions currently come primarily from statements made by the parties involved at the scene. Who actually executed the spraying, who initiated the violent physical confrontation, and whether there existed unified organization and command should still be confirmed through on-site video footage, police records, medical records, and other independent evidence.
However, a noteworthy fact remains: similar conflicts are not occurring for the first time in events related to Xi Jinping’s visits to the United States.
Network Screenshot of the Men in Sunglasses and Face Masks Attacking Protesters
II. San Francisco 2023: Conflicts Were Already Recorded
In November 2023, during Xi Jinping’s visit to San Francisco to attend the APEC summit, large numbers of pro-CCP supporters traveled from various regions across the United States to San Francisco to hold activities.
Public reports indicate that Chen Shanzhuang, chairman of the American Asian Community Association (and American Asian Federation), traveled from New York to San Francisco to organize welcoming activities. Relevant reports and research materials state that he was responsible for mobilizing and transporting supporters from the New York area and conducting on-site organization using walkie-talkies and other means.
Relevant reports by The New York Times also pointed out that during Xi Jinping’s visit to San Francisco in 2023, Chen Shanzhuang organized groups to welcome Xi Jinping, where on-site activities later led to clashes between supporters and protesters; Chen Shanzhuang himself was also photographed engaging in altercations with protesters.
This implies that the scene in Washington in 2026 was not an isolated incident.
At least judging from public data, a noteworthy clue has emerged:
Xi Jinping’s U.S. visit — Overseas hometown association mobilization — Pro-CCP groups and democratic protesters appearing simultaneously — Violent clashes erupting between the two sides.
This thread deserves continued investigation by U.S. law enforcement agencies and news organizations.
III. How Much Genuine Public Opinion Do the “Welcome Xi Jinping” Crowds Actually Represent?
Another question worth pursuing further is the large-scale pro-CCP welcoming crowd that appeared during Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States.
On September 23, 2026, Fujianese overseas Chinese associations from New York and other regions organized personnel to travel to Washington to welcome Xi Jinping. Public reports show that participating associations included multiple organizations such as the Fukien Benevolent Association of America, the Fujian Sanshan Association of USA, and the United Association of Fujian American. Chen Shanzhuang also stated in an interview that he had arrived in Washington several days in advance to participate in the welcoming activities.
Such organizational mobilization is not happening for the first time.
During Xi Jinping’s visit to San Francisco in 2023, Chen Shanzhuang also publicly stated that more than 1,000 people from over 50 organizations in New York had traveled to California to welcome Xi Jinping.
At the same time, some overseas media outlets have reported and confirmed that participants were able to receive transportation, room and board, as well as cash stipends. However, claims regarding specific amounts and sources of funding have come primarily from media reports, on-site individuals, and anonymous insiders, and have not been fully confirmed by official public investigative conclusions from the U.S. government.
Therefore, a more accurate question is not simply asking whether “all welcomers were paid hires,” but rather: How many people in these welcoming contingents participated spontaneously? How many were organized by overseas Chinese associations? Was there unified transportation, room and board, or cash stipends? Where did the funding come from? And what is the relationship between the organizers and Chinese diplomatic missions in the United States?
These questions can all be further verified through bank records, vehicle rental receipts, WeChat group notices, event planning documents, and investigations by relevant U.S. agencies.
Pro-CCP group organizer Chen Shanzhuang (Photo credit: Internet)
IV. Hometown Associations: Cultural Organizations or Networks of Political Mobilization?
Chinese overseas hometown associations themselves are not equal to political organizations.
Many Chinese overseas hometown associations have long served functions such as connecting fellow provincials, undertaking charity work, facilitating cultural exchanges, and rendering community services.
On the other hand, however, official Chinese public materials also show that the Chinese Communist Party has long attached high importance to work concerning overseas Chinese.
Xinhua News Agency once published materials regarding overseas Chinese affairs and United Front work during Xi Jinping’s period of work in Fujian, which explicitly mentioned strengthening liaison with overseas Chinese, uniting Fujianese compatriots both at home and abroad, as well as giving full play to the role of overseas Chinese affairs work.
A logical inference follows: Have these overseas hometown associations already become the CCP’s overseas proxy organizations? Have overseas hometown associations already accepted the direct command of the CCP?
When certain overseas Chinese associations, during visits by political figures to the United States, are capable of rapidly mobilizing large numbers of personnel across states, organizing vehicles, arranging accommodation, and appearing en masse at specific locations, their organizational capacity and funding sources likewise deserve public scrutiny!
One of the most important principles of political activities in a democratic society is: Whoever organizes, funds, commands, shall be held accountable!
V. Chen Shanzhuang’s Public Connections with the Official Chinese System
Chen Shanzhuang’s identity and his public connections with the official Chinese system are also worth observing against this background.
Fujian official media reported in 2024 that Chen Shanzhuang had returned to China as an overseas Chinese representative to attend the second session of the 14th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), and was received by the local Fujian Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese as well as local government officials. Reports also noted that while serving as Chairman of the American Asian Community Association (and American Asian Federation), he concurrently served as the Founding President of the American Fuzhou Langqi United Association.
Some American media outlets and research institutions have long paid attention to Chen Shanzhuang’s political influence within Chinese American community associations, as well as his involvement in organizing welcoming activities for Xi Jinping’s visits to the United States.
These public facts demonstrate that his political and overseas Chinese association activities carry a certain level of influence. However, whether this is sufficient to prove that he is an “overseas agent of the CCP” cannot be concluded based solely on his political stance or his participation in welcoming activities; this requires evidence in the legal sense of the United States and formal case investigations.
VI. The Most Mysterious “Men in Sunglasses”
Returning to the scene.
In the videos and photos captured by protesters, several men in sunglasses can be seen carrying long-handled black umbrellas.
According to Guo Jianxin, a pro-democracy figure present at the scene, China Democracy Party member, and Director of the Democracy Party’s San Francisco Branch, during the physical tussle on-site, someone managed to grab one of these umbrellas. This type of umbrella is custom-made, heavy to the touch, with a solid steel shaft in the center, bearing a strong resemblance to the black umbrellas used by security personnel during major political events in mainland China, as well as to the police gear used by the Central Special Police Bureau patrolling Tiananmen in Beijing, possessing both on-site obscuring and offensive capabilities.
There are also claims on the internet suggesting that these might be so-called “baton umbrellas” or specialized security equipment.
However, as of now, there is no reliable public evidence that can prove all the black umbrellas that appeared on-site in Washington belonged to Chinese security departments. Therefore, we must objectively state that carrying similar umbrellas does not prove that their holders belong to the Chinese security system.
What truly deserves investigation regarding the “men in sunglasses” is not what equipment they carried, but rather: Who carried it? Who purchased it? Who organized them? Who authorized them? Did anyone use the equipment to attack protesters? Was there command coming from official CCP personnel?
All these questions require answers to be provided down the line through videos, eyewitnesses, police investigations, and physical evidence; then, the true origin of the so-called “men in sunglasses” will naturally come to light.
The “Men in Sunglasses” Are Very Similar to the Police Gear Used by the CCP Special Service Bureau (Photo credit: Internet)
VII. If Transnational Repression Occurs in the United States, the Nature Is Completely Different
Political dissidents inside China face China’s domestic political and judicial system.
However, in the United States, the U.S. is a country governed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, protecting freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly.
Anyone, whether supporting Xi Jinping or opposing Xi Jinping, can express their political stance; nor can anyone be subjected to violent attacks on the streets of the United States simply due to differing political views.
Therefore, if eventual investigation confirms that individuals were systematically attacked, threatened, or harassed by a foreign government for their political stances, then the issue is no longer just an ordinary street clash, but may involve multiple dimensions including U.S. criminal law, civil liability, and foreign government transnational influence activities.
This is also why the issue of so-called “transnational repression” receives attention from American society.
The true goal of investigation should not be simply labeling a particular individual, but rather pursuing the facts behind the scenes:
What is the relationship between pro-CCP hometown associations and the CCP? Is there funding? Is there command? Is there participation from a foreign government? Are there unlawful acts? Who should bear responsibility for the assault incidents?
Suspected CCP agents among the crowd of protesters (Photo credit: Internet)
Conclusion: Let Facts Unveil the “Men in Sunglasses”
From San Francisco to Washington, from 2023 to 2026, the “welcoming” and “protesting” that emerged in overseas Chinese society during Xi Jinping’s visits to the United States have become a unique phenomenon in the political ecology of the Chinese American community.
On one side are the welcoming contingents organized by multiple pro-CCP overseas Chinese associations;
On the other side are pro-democracy, human rights, and anti-communist figures from mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and overseas.
Two completely different political voices colliding on American soil is in itself a slice of the era worth recording.
However, America’s answer cannot be “whoever speaks louder,” nor can it be “whoever has more people.”
The answer can only be: Everyone is equal before the law.
If someone organizes violence, investigate the organizers;
If someone carries out an attack, hold the perpetrator accountable;
If someone illegally accepts direction or funds from a foreign government, investigate them in accordance with the law;
And as for the “men in sunglasses,” the “black umbrellas,” and the organizational network behind them, there has always been only one single most valuable question:
Who on earth are they?
The answer should not be determined by political slogans, but should rather be unveiled through videos, witnesses, physical evidence, financial flows, and investigations by U.S. law enforcement.
Only facts can truly unveil the secrets of the “men in sunglasses and their umbrellas.” What truly needs to be safeguarded is everyone’s right to peacefully express their opinions within the framework of U.S. law.
The Opposition Party San Francisco Bureau 09/27/26
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
