> Why not? Unless you are a Chinese citizen, it arguably makes more sense to grant access to the Chinese government rather than the US government.

You're making zero sense:

1. I predict there will be no change in the US government's access as a result of this.

2. I don't think Americans are so indifferent to their own country that they'd prefer a situation where an adversary country gets handed an intelligence asset. I mean, hypothetically, would an American prefer US trade policy be set that in a way that disadvantages American workers, because some politician got blackmailed because of something his Roomba recorded?

> The PRC generally shows little interest in non-citizens while the US government frequently goes after people beyond its borders

3. The Chinese government has been going after people in the US. They've long been engaged in industrial espionage, but there's also their "overseas police stations" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65305415). It's worth noting that US citizens can have a Chinese origin, and I doubt the Chinese government would suddenly become uninterested in a dissident once he got naturalized.

> The PRC generally shows little interest in non-citizens

Aside from attempting to subvert democracies with botfarmed divisive politics, sure.

The general thing about state actors is that they have every incentive to have a dossier of compromising information on every foreign national regardless of current relevance, for potential use in the future. You could, for instance, someday be in a position where you have privileged access to data that becomes relevant to them, and thus your history becomes useful.

Why did you mix the comparison between

-Caring about citizens only on the Chinese side

-Going beyond their borders on the US side

and then list out examples that the US targeted which includes a US citizen, also while ignoring that China goes beyond its borders to target their citizens?

Both countries routinely act this way because they have the power to do so