I think you're imparting your own biases on the article here. The reporting on the "Chinese roots" of the company is provided as context for the reader because, as I explained above, China's alleged influence over American society and politics is very relevant at the moment - regardless of whether you agree that it is happening. As far as I know, there was also zero evidence provided by the US government of CCP-guided interference by Huawei or TikTok, yet it moved ahead with bans anyway. Particularly within the context of the reasoning for banning TikTok, NewsBreak's connections to China are extremely relevant. Note, in particular, this line from the article:
In February, IDG Capital was added to a list of dozens of Chinese companies the Pentagon said were allegedly working with Beijing’s military.
You accuse the outlet/journalist/editor of xenophobia and quote their findings of zero links to the CCP as evidence of this, but I would argue that this is actually evidence of the complete opposite. They are doing their best to provide a balanced view of the situation by reporting the lack of connections in contrast to the allegations or implications. If they actually had a genuine xenophobic intention with this reporting, there would be absolutely zero reason to include that line.
It is not an outrageous thing to say: being Chinese does not make you a CCP operative.
The article doesn't state or imply that, though. What it does do is provide information to the reader that is, again, relevant because of the current situation in US politics where you do have politicians alleging or implying that being Chinese, even ethnically, equates to being a CCP operative.
I just wish they would stop saying “China” or “Chinese” as shorthand for “CCP”.
This is standard in the field of international relations, though. We always use the name of the country or the capital city of the country when referring to it on the international stage. You are suggesting that we should refer to China as "the CCP", the USA as "the Democrats", Australia as "Labor", etc. That is obviously an extremely confusing and illogical way of presenting information to a global audience.
I think the fact that you are so concerned about how Trump might hijack this type of balanced reporting is a massive tell that you are not reading it impartially. You are approaching it from the position of "the West has an anti-China bias" (a position I don't necessarily disagree with) and are then trying to link the dots between the information provided in the article and your world view. You need to understand that reporting facts, that may be parroted in bad faith by political groups and their supporters to reach an inaccurate/unsupported conclusion, is not the same as an opinion piece where the objective is to emotionally manipulate the reader or lead them to a particular conclusion. Reuters has an extremely good reputation for highly factual and unbiased reporting and there is nothing in this report to suggest otherwise.