The US owes the people of Hong Kong an explanation
Skip to content
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Hong Kong activist in exile Anna Kwok speaks in Washington, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026. (AP Photo)
Six years ago, the U.S. drew a line on Hong Kong.
After Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city, criminalizing dissent and effectively ending the “one country, two systems” framework that had defined Hong Kong since the 1997 handover, President Trump signed Executive Order 13936. It declared a national emergency, stripped Hong Kong of the preferential trade and export-control treatment it had long enjoyed as a distinct customs territory, and opened the door to sanctions on officials responsible for dismantling the city’s freedoms.
That line just quietly disappeared.
On July 14, the national emergency underlying Trump’s order lapsed. There was no announcement from the White House, no policy speech explaining the reasoning, just silence. The administration simply declined to file the routine renewal notice it had filed every year since 2020.
It was Beijing, not Washington, that told the world first. China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the news on July 17, framing it as the fulfillment of commitments the U.S. reportedly made during trade talks in Madrid last September. The Treasury Department later confirmed the decision, but has offered no public explanation of what was agreed to or why.
The American public, and the people of Hong Kong, deserve that explanation.
The practical stakes are real. Sanctions relief now extends to nine officials directly responsible for the crackdown on Hong Kong, including Justice Secretary Paul Lam, National Security Department Chief Sonny Au, and former police commissioners Raymond Siu and Stephen Lo. These individuals have spent years enforcing a legal apparatus that has jailed pro-democracy activists, shuttered independent newsrooms and, as recently as this spring, allowed authorities to freeze the assets of imprisoned publisher and British citizen Jimmy Lai. The lapse may also pave the way for Hong Kong to regain the preferential trade status and export-control exemptions the order revoked in 2020.
None of this reflects an improvement on the ground. Just this year, Hong Kong officials implemented new national-security offenses criminalizing refusal to hand over passwords to police, sweeping new powers letting the city’s leader certify any case as a national-security matter beyond judicial review, and continued asset seizures reaching dissidents abroad.
Judging by the very standard the order itself set in 2020 — an “unusual and extraordinary threat“ to Hong Kong’s autonomy — nothing has changed except Washington’s willingness to say so.
There is a human cost that rarely makes it into a Treasury statement. Thousands of Hong Kongers have come to the United States in recent years, many fleeing the very crackdown the national emergency was designed to answer. They came here believing that America, its laws and its willingness to stand up to Beijing was a genuine refuge from a government that had already shown it would reach across borders to silence its critics. Hong Kong authorities have placed bounties on pro-democracy activists living overseas, and have launched transnational repression campaigns reaching diaspora communities from Melbourne to London to right here in the U.S.
For many of these families, Washington’s silence sends a signal that the country they trusted to protect them may no longer be willing to do so.
This was not a reassessment prompted by improvements in Hong Kong. To all indications, it was a trade concession, negotiated behind closed doors, confirmed not by the administration that made it but by the government that benefited from it. The non-renewal of the national emergency does not just fail to hold Beijing accountable — it hands the Chinese Communist Party a win it has not earned.
Congress and the public deserve real answers. What, specifically, did the United States receive from Beijing in exchange? Were human rights conditions ever part of that negotiation, or was Hong Kong simply a chip on a larger table involving tariffs and technology?
Congress does not have to accept silence as an answer. It has the tools to find out: hearings, document requests, and the oversight authority it already holds over U.S.-China policy. Lawmakers from both parties supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act by overwhelming bipartisan margins because they understood that human rights and trade policy should not be interchangeable. That principle is worth defending now, not just in 2020.
The administration must reconsider this decision and ensure that sanctions on the Hong Kong officials responsible for dismantling the city’s judicial independence and civil liberties remain firmly in place.
The people of Hong Kong, the judges forced from the bench, the journalists who have fled or been jailed, activists like Jimmy Lai still sitting in prison, and the families who crossed an ocean believing in the promise of American freedom, did not choose this moment of American retreat. They deserve better than to be a bargaining chip in a trade deal negotiated on their behalf but without their voice.
At minimum, they deserve an honest explanation.
Megan Khoo is policy director at Hong Kong Watch.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
Six years ago, the United States drew a line on Hong Kong. That line just quietly disappeared
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
Skip to content
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Hong Kong activist in exile Anna Kwok speaks in Washington, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026. (AP Photo)
Six years ago, the U.S. drew a line on Hong Kong.
After Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city, criminalizing dissent and effectively ending the “one country, two systems” framework that had defined Hong Kong since the 1997 handover, President Trump signed Executive Order 13936. It declared a national emergency, stripped Hong Kong of the preferential trade and export-control treatment it had long enjoyed as a distinct customs territory, and opened the door to sanctions on officials responsible for dismantling the city’s freedoms.
That line just quietly disappeared.
On July 14, the national emergency underlying Trump’s order lapsed. There was no announcement from the White House, no policy speech explaining the reasoning, just silence. The administration simply declined to file the routine renewal notice it had filed every year since 2020.
It was Beijing, not Washington, that told the world first. China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the news on July 17, framing it as the fulfillment of commitments the U.S. reportedly made during trade talks in Madrid last September. The Treasury Department later confirmed the decision, but has offered no public explanation of what was agreed to or why.
The American public, and the people of Hong Kong, deserve that explanation.
The practical stakes are real. Sanctions relief now extends to nine officials directly responsible for the crackdown on Hong Kong, including Justice Secretary Paul Lam, National Security Department Chief Sonny Au, and former police commissioners Raymond Siu and Stephen Lo. These individuals have spent years enforcing a legal apparatus that has jailed pro-democracy activists, shuttered independent newsrooms and, as recently as this spring, allowed authorities to freeze the assets of imprisoned publisher and British citizen Jimmy Lai. The lapse may also pave the way for Hong Kong to regain the preferential trade status and export-control exemptions the order revoked in 2020.
None of this reflects an improvement on the ground. Just this year, Hong Kong officials implemented new national-security offenses criminalizing refusal to hand over passwords to police, sweeping new powers letting the city’s leader certify any case as a national-security matter beyond judicial review, and continued asset seizures reaching dissidents abroad.
Judging by the very standard the order itself set in 2020 — an “unusual and extraordinary threat“ to Hong Kong’s autonomy — nothing has changed except Washington’s willingness to say so.
There is a human cost that rarely makes it into a Treasury statement. Thousands of Hong Kongers have come to the United States in recent years, many fleeing the very crackdown the national emergency was designed to answer. They came here believing that America, its laws and its willingness to stand up to Beijing was a genuine refuge from a government that had already shown it would reach across borders to silence its critics. Hong Kong authorities have placed bounties on pro-democracy activists living overseas, and have launched transnational repression campaigns reaching diaspora communities from Melbourne to London to right here in the U.S.
For many of these families, Washington’s silence sends a signal that the country they trusted to protect them may no longer be willing to do so.
This was not a reassessment prompted by improvements in Hong Kong. To all indications, it was a trade concession, negotiated behind closed doors, confirmed not by the administration that made it but by the government that benefited from it. The non-renewal of the national emergency does not just fail to hold Beijing accountable — it hands the Chinese Communist Party a win it has not earned.
Congress and the public deserve real answers. What, specifically, did the United States receive from Beijing in exchange? Were human rights conditions ever part of that negotiation, or was Hong Kong simply a chip on a larger table involving tariffs and technology?
Congress does not have to accept silence as an answer. It has the tools to find out: hearings, document requests, and the oversight authority it already holds over U.S.-China policy. Lawmakers from both parties supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act by overwhelming bipartisan margins because they understood that human rights and trade policy should not be interchangeable. That principle is worth defending now, not just in 2020.
The administration must reconsider this decision and ensure that sanctions on the Hong Kong officials responsible for dismantling the city’s judicial independence and civil liberties remain firmly in place.
The people of Hong Kong, the judges forced from the bench, the journalists who have fled or been jailed, activists like Jimmy Lai still sitting in prison, and the families who crossed an ocean believing in the promise of American freedom, did not choose this moment of American retreat. They deserve better than to be a bargaining chip in a trade deal negotiated on their behalf but without their voice.
At minimum, they deserve an honest explanation.
Megan Khoo is policy director at Hong Kong Watch.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
Skip to content
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
Hong Kong activist in exile Anna Kwok speaks in Washington, Friday, Feb. 27, 2026. (AP Photo)
Six years ago, the U.S. drew a line on Hong Kong.
After Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city, criminalizing dissent and effectively ending the “one country, two systems” framework that had defined Hong Kong since the 1997 handover, President Trump signed Executive Order 13936. It declared a national emergency, stripped Hong Kong of the preferential trade and export-control treatment it had long enjoyed as a distinct customs territory, and opened the door to sanctions on officials responsible for dismantling the city’s freedoms.
That line just quietly disappeared.
On July 14, the national emergency underlying Trump’s order lapsed. There was no announcement from the White House, no policy speech explaining the reasoning, just silence. The administration simply declined to file the routine renewal notice it had filed every year since 2020.
It was Beijing, not Washington, that told the world first. China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the news on July 17, framing it as the fulfillment of commitments the U.S. reportedly made during trade talks in Madrid last September. The Treasury Department later confirmed the decision, but has offered no public explanation of what was agreed to or why.
The American public, and the people of Hong Kong, deserve that explanation.
The practical stakes are real. Sanctions relief now extends to nine officials directly responsible for the crackdown on Hong Kong, including Justice Secretary Paul Lam, National Security Department Chief Sonny Au, and former police commissioners Raymond Siu and Stephen Lo. These individuals have spent years enforcing a legal apparatus that has jailed pro-democracy activists, shuttered independent newsrooms and, as recently as this spring, allowed authorities to freeze the assets of imprisoned publisher and British citizen Jimmy Lai. The lapse may also pave the way for Hong Kong to regain the preferential trade status and export-control exemptions the order revoked in 2020.
None of this reflects an improvement on the ground. Just this year, Hong Kong officials implemented new national-security offenses criminalizing refusal to hand over passwords to police, sweeping new powers letting the city’s leader certify any case as a national-security matter beyond judicial review, and continued asset seizures reaching dissidents abroad.
Judging by the very standard the order itself set in 2020 — an “unusual and extraordinary threat“ to Hong Kong’s autonomy — nothing has changed except Washington’s willingness to say so.
There is a human cost that rarely makes it into a Treasury statement. Thousands of Hong Kongers have come to the United States in recent years, many fleeing the very crackdown the national emergency was designed to answer. They came here believing that America, its laws and its willingness to stand up to Beijing was a genuine refuge from a government that had already shown it would reach across borders to silence its critics. Hong Kong authorities have placed bounties on pro-democracy activists living overseas, and have launched transnational repression campaigns reaching diaspora communities from Melbourne to London to right here in the U.S.
For many of these families, Washington’s silence sends a signal that the country they trusted to protect them may no longer be willing to do so.
This was not a reassessment prompted by improvements in Hong Kong. To all indications, it was a trade concession, negotiated behind closed doors, confirmed not by the administration that made it but by the government that benefited from it. The non-renewal of the national emergency does not just fail to hold Beijing accountable — it hands the Chinese Communist Party a win it has not earned.
Congress and the public deserve real answers. What, specifically, did the United States receive from Beijing in exchange? Were human rights conditions ever part of that negotiation, or was Hong Kong simply a chip on a larger table involving tariffs and technology?
Congress does not have to accept silence as an answer. It has the tools to find out: hearings, document requests, and the oversight authority it already holds over U.S.-China policy. Lawmakers from both parties supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act by overwhelming bipartisan margins because they understood that human rights and trade policy should not be interchangeable. That principle is worth defending now, not just in 2020.
The administration must reconsider this decision and ensure that sanctions on the Hong Kong officials responsible for dismantling the city’s judicial independence and civil liberties remain firmly in place.
The people of Hong Kong, the judges forced from the bench, the journalists who have fled or been jailed, activists like Jimmy Lai still sitting in prison, and the families who crossed an ocean believing in the promise of American freedom, did not choose this moment of American retreat. They deserve better than to be a bargaining chip in a trade deal negotiated on their behalf but without their voice.
At minimum, they deserve an honest explanation.
Megan Khoo is policy director at Hong Kong Watch.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
- Six years ago, the United States drew a line on Hong Kong.
- That line just quietly disappeared