By extending its “national emergency” designation for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Friday, the United States has again demonstrated its brazen practice of unjust international policy.
Initially promulgated by President Donald Trump’s administration in 2020 and subsequently renewed for a fourth consecutive year by the Joe Biden administration in July 2024, the executive action is devoid of legitimacy and founded upon a fabricated narrative that deliberately misrepresents and denigrates the governance of the HKSAR – an internal affair of China. By continuing such an unjustifiable policy, Washington is not only interfering in the sovereign affairs of another state, but also actively undermining the fragile stability of global diplomacy when responsible statecraft is most required.
The purported rationale behind such a move is that developments in Hong Kong constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the US. Such an argument is both logically incoherent and empirically unsubstantiated. The SAR has never posed any threat to the US in any of these domains. The city’s internal legislative reforms and national security laws are domestic matters that conform to the constitutional framework of the People’s Republic of China. These changes are aimed precisely at restoring public safety, legal order, and social harmony following years of foreign-instigated unrest in Hong Kong. Framing these actions as threats to US interests is to engage in ideological projection, rather than objective analysis.
The legislative steps taken in Hong Kong, including the enactment of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, are not only lawfully mandated under the Basic Law, but also represent a standard state function comparable to the legal instruments in almost every country. The US itself maintains expansive national security statutes (at least 21 relevant laws) that grant sweeping powers to its federal agencies. Yet, it expresses outrage when China, with far more restraint and precision, strengthens its legal protections. This is a textbook demonstration of double standards and political hypocrisy. There is no rational and logical explanation for why China’s sovereign right to safeguard one of its regions should be treated as a “national emergency” by a foreign country an ocean away.
The economic implications of this US policy are significant. By stripping Hong Kong of its preferential trade status, Washington has introduced a punitive regime intended to sabotage the SAR’s economy. These measures, including the denial of export licenses for sensitive technologies and the imposition of immigration restrictions, have somehow disrupted longstanding commercial relationships and created unnecessary uncertainty for global investors.
US companies operating in Hong Kong are not immune to these consequences and have already reported increased operational costs, regulatory confusion, and deteriorating market confidence. The result is a policy that harms not only the people of Hong Kong, but also undermines the very economic interests Washington pretends to defend. This unjustified economic warfare should cease immediately to prevent further damaging bilateral interests.
Moreover, this “national emergency” extension for Hong Kong comes amid an already volatile geopolitical climate. The reissuance of such a hostile executive order against the SAR under the pretext of a “national emergency” could exacerbate bilateral friction and reduce the space for constructive dialogue between China and the US. The policy is not an isolated administrative act, but a calculated affront that reflects a broader containment strategy aimed at obstructing China’s development. It sends a clear message of antagonism that is incompatible with the principles of international cooperation and mutual respect. Such a move risks damaging one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in the world today, with long-term implications for global stability and economic development.
The invocation of “emergency” powers in this context is not only legally dubious, but also politically reckless. “National emergency” declarations are intended to address sudden and concrete dangers, not to pursue foreign policy objectives through executive overreach. The continued classification of Hong Kong as a threat to the US is an abuse of this legal instrument and a distortion of its intended purpose. It reduces the credibility of such declarations and reveals their use as tools of coercion rather than instruments of national defense. This practice delegitimizes the legal standards that are supposed to govern international conduct and exposes the US as a state willing to manipulate its domestic laws for geopolitical gain.
What’s particularly alarming is Washington’s attempt to justify its aggressive posture using the language of “human rights” and “democracy”. This rhetorical strategy is disingenuous. The same country that has faced criticism for its criminal justice system, including issues of mass incarceration and systemic racial discrimination, and has seen widespread protests over these and other violations of civil liberties, now claims to be the moral authority on governance abroad. Such hypocrisy is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to the intelligence of the international community. Fair-minded people around the world have seen through this charade. They understand that the true motivation behind these measures is to destabilize China by weaponizing its internal affairs. To portray these measures as being in defense of liberty is to engage in political theater of the lowest order.
Furthermore, the US has shown an alarming willingness to interfere in Hong Kong’s judicial independence. By calling for the release of individuals lawfully convicted under national security laws or other laws, and by imposing visa restrictions on Hong Kong’s office holders for carrying out their legal duties, the US is attempting to subvert the SAR’s judicial independence and undermine the rule of law. No state has the right to dictate the outcomes of another country’s legal processes. Such actions are a direct challenge to the principle of sovereign equality and an affront to the dignity of the Chinese state. They reflect a neocolonial mindset that views the world as subject to American supervision, a mindset that is both outdated and offensive.
The portrayal of Hong Kong as a city in “decline”, gripped by “repression” and “economic stagnation” is another deliberate misrepresentation. Despite the challenges it has faced, Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most dynamic financial centers with a resilient economy, a robust legal infrastructure, and a highly educated population, as evidenced by the city’s high rankings in global surveys. The region continues to attract investment, facilitate international trade, and contribute meaningfully to the national economy.
The stability that has returned to Hong Kong following the restoration of public order testifies to the effectiveness of the policies enacted under “one country, two systems”. This unique arrangement allows the SAR to maintain its capitalist system and a high degree of autonomy for 50 years after the handover in 1997. This framework, far from being a failure, has successfully balanced local distinctiveness with national unity. It’s absurd to claim that the integration of HKSAR within the national security framework of China represents a “loss of autonomy”. Instead, it reflects the maturation of a constitutional order.
The continuation of this “national emergency” executive order signals not the moral high ground of a principled nation, but the desperation of a declining power clinging to illusions of authority. It reflects a refusal to accept the irreversible transformation of global power structures, and reveals a compulsive need to fabricate enemies where none exist. The Hong Kong SAR has not failed in its governance, nor has China overstepped its rightful boundaries. What has failed is the credibility of a nation that sees another state’s assertion of sovereignty as a threat to its own fading dominance. The political manipulation of domestic legal instruments to suppress the Hong Kong SAR and to fracture China’s development will not succeed.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
