> Given the lack of demonstrable, specific harm, the matter is--rightly, in my opinion--deferred to the political branches as a political question (as opposed to a legal one).

I'm not sure how it can be relegated completely to political representatives, given that the secreacy means that the check on representative desicions (an informed populace voting for their representatives) isn't present.

> That said, let's keep in mind context. Here we have a government program which we're able to freely debate. If enough of us prioritized its removal, it would be outlawed.

You can freely debate specific policies in China, and broadly unpopular policies in China are suspended.

That can't be said for the US, where whether a law is passed has more to do with whether the ruling class supports it, rather than it's broad popularity.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

> That functions as a fundamental check totally lacking in China, moreso now that Xi is a dictator.

The whole 'Xi is a dictator' thing is severely overblown in Western media. Oh no, he has the same term limits as Angela Merkel now. Literally a dictator.

PS: linking to the states secrets wikipage to increase your number of citations is lol inducing.