U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was asked about the “Kill Line” by a CCTV reporter at the World Economic Forum, but she completely misunderstood what it meant and finally bluntly said, “I cannot understand your question.”
(Background: Learning negotiation from Trump | What is the TACO deal? Understanding his “shout first, then concede” pressure strategy)
(Additional context: Crypto market bill delayed until March, Trump prioritizing the “Wall Street ban on buying homes” policy ahead of midterm elections)

Table of Contents

• The Chinese and American understanding of the “Kill Line” becomes “talking past each other”
• Tracing the origin of the “Kill Line”
• The necessity of political propaganda
• How to identify cognitive warfare
• Truth and illusion

The term “Kill Line” has become familiar over the past few months, widely described in Chinese online circles to illustrate the level of economic hardship faced by people living in the U.S., suggesting society will swallow them whole.

On the 21st, at the Swiss Davos World Economic Forum, a Chinese Central Television reporter posed a carefully prepared, deadly question to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

The reporter asked about the “kill line,” intending to prompt Bessent to respond about the financial plight of the American middle class. But her pronunciation made the term sound like “Q line.”

This led to a classic scene: one asking about a line that determines life or death, the other responding about tax refunds. Bessent mistakenly thought the reporter was talking about the “Q line” on the state tax refund form.

He then launched into a discussion about Trump’s tax policies, suggesting that perhaps tariffs could be used to give each American family a $1,000 tax rebate. The reporter persisted, and Bessent, with a puzzled expression, replied, “I cannot understand your question. I think you cannot understand it either.”

Bessent did not dodge the question; the question dodged him because he simply didn’t understand.

The Chinese and American understanding of the “Kill Line” becomes “talking past each other”

The Bible records that humans once united to build the Tower of Babel to reach heaven. God, to prevent them, confounded their language, and the project was halted.

This myth perfectly illustrates the absurd scene at Davos.

China’s propaganda has carefully crafted the concept of the “Kill Line” as a weapon. In the Chinese context, it is powerful enough to evoke a strong sense of superiority: “Wow, Americans are actually doing very poorly.”

But when this weapon is brought onto the international stage and aimed at the U.S. Treasury Secretary, it fails to ignite due to the most basic language barrier.

A weapon of cognitive warfare must be understood by the opponent to be effective. Otherwise, it’s just self-amusement.

This is not a translation issue but a fundamental limitation of “closed-loop propaganda.” When a narrative only circulates within a specific language or group, it gradually detaches from reality and becomes an internal celebration.

Closed-loop propaganda: thunderous applause inside the wall, blank stares outside.

Tracing the source of the “Kill Line”

Let’s fairly examine this concept.

The creator of the “Kill Line” has been identified online as “LaoA” (King Squid), a Bilibili uploader who claims to work part-time collecting bodies at a medical school in Seattle. He claims to have discovered many homeless people quietly passing away on the streets, who not long ago were thriving middle-class Americans.

His cited data indeed comes from the Federal Reserve, indicating about 37% of Americans cannot come up with $400 in an emergency. PNC Bank reports that roughly 67% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

These data are real, but the “Kill Line” concept is a piece of information weapon packaged by self-media.

The problem lies in double standards: when Chinese commentators use “Kill Line” to depict American poverty, they selectively ignore that approximately 546 million Chinese have an average monthly income below 1,000 RMB, with rural pensions only 140 to 210 RMB per month, and a serious illness could collapse a family.

37% of Americans unable to raise $400 is a crisis; 600 million Chinese earning only a few thousand yuan annually is “internal circulation.” This is the art of selective blindness.

Legal blogger Li Yuchen pointed out that the “Kill Line” statement “is more of an emotional interpreter than an analytical tool.” This article was later censored and deleted, which itself reveals many facts.

The necessity of political propaganda

The operation logic of China’s propaganda machinery is simple: create concepts → selectively cite data → criticize opponents → remain silent on own issues.

This pattern works perfectly within the Chinese community, with the Zhejiang Provincial Propaganda Department’s official account claiming the “Kill Line” is an irreversible systemic disease of the U.S.

But when this narrative attempts to go international, problems emerge.

The New York Times journalist Yuan Li wrote on January 14, 2026, that Chinese officials use the “Kill Line” to assert their superiority over the U.S. and divert attention from China’s economic challenges.

Ironically, the creator of the “Kill Line,” “LaoA,” was labeled a “Chinese political propaganda tool” by the NYT and immediately evacuated the U.S. on the same day.

The creator of the “Kill Line” was ultimately “killed” by the NYT. The most ironic ending of cognitive warfare, perhaps, is this.

But political propaganda is always an indispensable tool for a nation.

How to identify cognitive warfare

This article isn’t about telling you “America is good, China is bad” or vice versa. Social inequality and poverty traps objectively exist in both China and the U.S., or most countries. This is not a game of “who’s worse.”

But I want to share some methods of identification:

First, check the source of the concept. Who created it? What is their motivation? The “Kill Line” comes from a self-media blogger, not academic research.

Second, verify both ways. What happens if you apply the standards criticizing Country A to Country B? If critics remain silent on similar issues in B, that’s double standards.

Third, beware of closed-loop effects. “Truth” circulated only within certain circles is likely an echo chamber, self-congratulating.

Fourth, why does information evoke emotion? When information makes you feel a strong sense of superiority, be especially cautious. That usually means propaganda has taken effect.

Truth and illusion

I’m not saying the U.S. has no problems. The fact that 37% of people can’t raise $400 now does sound quite exaggerated. The costs of healthcare, education, and housing in the U.S. threaten many families; these are real issues faced by “developed” countries.

But criticizing opponents with self-created concepts while selectively ignoring that about 546 million Chinese have an average monthly income below 1,000 RMB, and rural pensions are only 140-210 RMB per month, is another form of “killing” — a killing of the truth.

When you point at others and say “You’re about to die,” it’s best to first check if your own pulse is still beating.

The scene of Bessent and Chinese media talking past each other may be a re-interpretation of online community dynamics in 2026. Online communities are not truly “transnational”; issue circles become internet bubbles, separating different countries, nations, political consciousness… leading to misunderstanding and contention.

This is not a victory for the U.S. nor a failure for China. It’s a reminder that in the age of information warfare, the strongest defense is maintaining independent thinking.

Wishing you clarity amid the noise of information.