With the imposition of a 20-year prison sentence on media tycoon and pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai on February 9, 2026, Hong Kong has once again drawn international attention. As condemned by organizations such as Human Rights Watch (2026), the ruling is “cruel and profoundly unjust,” posing a severe risk to Lai’s already deteriorating health after prolonged solitary confinement. This outcome highlights Beijing’s unyielding determination to suppress dissent, despite the freedoms ostensibly guaranteed under the “one country, two systems” framework.
While Lai’s personal fate and the erosion of Hong Kong’s rule of law warrant deep concern, this article focuses on the sentence’s implications for Sino-American relations. It argues that Lai’s severe sentencing—despite repeated U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls for his release—serves as a manifestation of diplomatic flexibility in three key ways. First, it allows both sides to reaffirm their entrenched positions without jeopardizing forthcoming bilateral deals. Second, it preserves mechanisms (such as humanitarian parole or compassionate release) for low-cost goodwill gestures that Beijing could deploy strategically. Third, and most controversially, the U.S. response—primarily rhetorical condemnation—reveals symbolic yet limited leverage under the Trump administration’s “America First” policy, functioning more as moral signaling than as a decisive bargaining tool.
The sentencing provokes interrogation of whether Beijing’s legal severity functions less as blind repression and more as a calculated reaffirmation of non-negotiable sovereignty red line: first explicitly articulated by Xi Jinping in his July 1, 2017, speech marking Hong Kong’s handover anniversary and Carrie Lam’s inauguration, where he warned that any attempt to “endanger China’s sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the Central Government… or use Hong Kong to carry out infiltration and sabotage activities against the mainland” crosses a “red line” that is “absolutely impermissible” (Xinhua 2017).
Initially vague in scope, the term gained sharper enforcement after events like the July 21, 2019, defacement of the PRC emblem during protests, which Beijing framed as a direct violation. By treating Lai’s international contacts and his calls for sanctions during the 2019 protests as “collusion with foreign forces,” the Hong Kong High Court’s verdict and the 20-year penalty exemplify Xi Jinping’s long-standing insistence on merging party security with state security (Fardella 2009, 552–560; Hou 2023). This stance, repeatedly laid out in official white papers and courtroom reasoning (Pomfret and Pang 2026), allows Washington to issue its expected condemnation—Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the ruling “unjust and tragic”—without ever linking the case to the real priorities of tariffs, technology controls, or Taiwan (U.S. Department of State 2026; Wu 2024).
In practice, the mutual posturing keeps the negotiating table clear ahead of Trump’s planned April 2026 visit to Beijing. Hong Kong has long served as a peripheral but symbolically charged arena in Sino-American relations: Beijing can show iron resolve on internal matters while Washington registers its normative objections without immediate fallout (Hung 2022). Recent work on bargaining in U.S.-China economic rivalry shows exactly this pattern—initial assertions of sovereignty often come before pragmatic adjustments precisely because they leave the broader relationship undamaged (Wu 2024, 330–335). The Lai sentence, therefore, does not slam diplomatic doors shut; instead, it quietly reinforces the boundaries both sides have already drawn, letting each perform strength for its own audience while keeping space open for transactional deals where mutual interest still matters. The apparent rigidity, in other words, may be the very thing that stabilizes rather than ruptures the bilateral framework.
Far from closing off all options, the sheer length of the 20-year term—effectively a life sentence for a 78-year-old man whose health has visibly declined in detention—leaves visible room for calibrated humanitarian gestures. Mechanisms such as parole or compassionate release sit quietly within Hong Kong’s legal system and have already been highlighted by U.S. officials as realistic pathways (Human Rights Watch 2026; Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2026). Such a move would require no admission that the National Security Law was wrongly applied; it could simply be presented as a personal gesture in the transactional style Trump favours. Beijing would gain an image boost and a small stabilising effect on ties, all at minimal domestic cost (ISHR 2022, 8–12). This is the familiar logic of reversible instruments in U.S.-China interactions: initial harshness creates the very diplomatic currency that can later be spent.
Commentators have openly called Lai’s case a potential “bargaining chip,” especially with Trump’s personal involvement and the April summit on the horizon (Pierson 2026; Yang 2026; Pao 2026). One is left wondering whether Beijing has deliberately kept this lever in place—offering symbolic relief that burnishes its image and eases tensions without touching core principles. Recent studies of Chinese red-line signalling through legal and economic tools point in the same direction: severe measures signal firmness on sovereignty while quietly preserving reversibility for strategic advantage (Gong 2026). In this light, the sentence feels less like a final door slammed shut and more like a carefully left opening, waiting for the right moment of mutual interest to be used. The persistence of humanitarian parole calls from Washington and allies only underscores the latent flexibility Beijing has embedded in an otherwise uncompromising outcome.
The U.S. response, meanwhile, forces a harder question: how does human-rights advocacy function when it sits under an “America First” logic that puts transactional wins above sustained normative pressure? Trump’s repeated personal appeals and expressions of sympathy have been genuine, yet they have never escalated into concrete measures or explicit linkages with trade packages (Krishnamoorthi 2025; Satoru 2025). The condemnations serve their purpose—moral signaling for domestic audiences and allies—but rarely shift Beijing’s calculations when sovereignty is at stake (Kim 2023). Meanwhile, the administration’s more muscular interventions elsewhere—such as strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, and targeted operations in Nigeria and parts of the Middle East—have generated viral images of decisive U.S. action, potentially fueling a hopeful illusion among Hong Kong’s pro-democracy supporters who long for similar intervention. Though secondary to core strategic priorities, this gap between heightened expectations and Washington’s restrained posture in Lai’s case risks eroding U.S. soft power in another quiet battle for hearts and minds. In the long run, Hong Kong’s limited strategic weight in global calculations leaves Trump’s practical diplomacy with few viable paths forward, revealing the enduring tension between symbolic rhetoric and tangible leverage.
Scholarship on the second Trump administration shows how “America First” consistently subordinates value-based concerns to deal-making, rendering individual human-rights cases peripheral unless they deliver immediate reciprocal gains (Sun 2025; Wu 2024). The pattern echoes long-standing critiques of “hostage diplomacy” responses, where international calls stay largely pro forma unless tied to high-stakes reciprocity (ISHR 2022, 8–12). The result is a structurally limited leverage that performs moral clarity without disturbing the pragmatic core of bilateral engagement—precisely the kind of flexibility the sentencing itself was designed to allow.
One cannot help but wonder whether this bounded advocacy, while reassuring at home, inadvertently tells Beijing that normative pressure can be absorbed at low cost, thereby reinforcing the very red lines Washington claims to contest. Though no further evidence discloses what President Trump will propose regarding Jimmy Lai in the possible meeting with President Xi in April, current responses from either Trump himself or the Department of State do not provide effective or practical communicative pressure toward Beijing that places the United States on firmer moral high ground, or generates meaningful bargaining capital regarding Hong Kong’s fading position in international (especially China-US) trade.
Jimmy Lai’s 20-year sentence reveals a quiet but sophisticated form of diplomatic flexibility. Beijing’s apparent intransigence reaffirms its red lines, yet keeps low-cost concession options open and exposes the bounded nature of U.S. normative leverage under transactional leadership. Rather than a straightforward story of authoritarian hardening, the case shows a calculated architecture that lets both sides manage tension without rupture (Chivvis 2024). As high-level engagements draw nearer, Lai’s fate becomes a quiet litmus test: whether the space deliberately left open will be used for a modest thaw or simply left to harden into permanent distance. Ultimately, the episode pushes us to look beyond surface condemnations and examine the embedded flexibilities—and the enduring constraints—that continue to define contemporary Sino-American bargaining.
References
Chivvis, Christopher S. 2024. “A Realistic Scenario for Coexistence Between China and America in the Mid-2030s.” In U.S.-China Relations for the 2030s: Toward a Realistic Scenario for Coexistence, edited by Christopher S. Chivvis, 17–36. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/us-china-relations-for-the-2030s-toward-a-realistic-scenario-for-coexistence.
Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC). 2026. “Chairs Condemn Sentencing, Seek Medical Parole for Jimmy Lai.” February 9. https://www.cecc.gov/media-center/press-releases/chairs-condemn-sentencing-seek-medical-parole-jimmy-lai.
Fardella, Enrico. 2009. “The Sino-American Normalization: A Reassessment.” Diplomatic History 33 (4): 545–78.
Fehér, Zoltán. 2024. “The Sources of American Conduct: U.S. Strategy, China’s Rise, and International Order.” PhD diss., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
Gong, Xue. 2026. “China’s Use of Economic Punishment: Strategic Signalling, Red Lines and Returns.” RSIS Commentary. January 26.
Hou, Zhide. 2023. “The National Security Law for Hong Kong: A Corpus-Driven Comparative Study of Media Representations between China’s and Anglo-American English-Language Press.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01699-7.
Hu, Xiaochen. 2018. “Danger and Opportunity: The Sino-U.S. Rapprochement as a Domestic Political Crisis in Both Countries, 1971-1972.” PhD diss., Georgetown University.
Human Rights Watch. “Hong Kong: Publisher Jimmy Lai Sentenced to 20 Years.” February 9, 2026. https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/09/hong-kong-publisher-jimmy-lai-sentenced-to-20-years.
Hung, Ho Ting. 2022. “Hong Kong’s Historic Role in Sino-US Relations.” The Webster Review of International History 2 (1): 84–110.
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR). 2022. The National Security Law for Hong Kong: Impacts on Civic Space and Civil Society Engagement with the UN. Geneva: ISHR.
Kim, Dongchan. 2023. “The Biden Doctrine and China’s Response.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 58 (7): 1123–1140.
Krishnamoorthi, Raja. 2025. The CCP’s Escalating Assault on Democracy and Human Rights. November. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.
Pao, Jeff. 2026. “Jimmy Lai Severely Sentenced Despite Trump Calling for His Release.” Asia Times, February 10. https://asiatimes.com/2026/02/jimmy-lai-severely-sentenced-despite-trump-calling-for-his-release/
Pierson, David. 2026. “Hong Kong Court Sentences Jimmy Lai to 20 Years.” New York Times, February 8 (updated February 9). https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/08/world/jimmy-lai-sentenced-hong-kong.
Pomfret, James, and Jessie Pang. 2026. “China Releases Policy Paper on National Security in Hong Kong After Jimmy Lai Sentencing.” Reuters, February 10. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-releases-policy-paper-national-security-hong-kong-after-jimmy-lai-sentencing-2026-02-10/.
Satoru, Mori. 2025. “The Second Trump Administration’s Foreign Engagement and Its Geostrategy Toward the Four Regions.” Asia-Pacific Review 32 (1): 45–67.
Sun, Yun. 2025. “Experts React: Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy.” Stimson Center, December 9. https://www.stimson.org/2025/experts-react-trump-administrations-national-security-strategy/.
U.S. Department of State. 2026. “Sentencing in Jimmy Lai Case.” February 9. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/02/sentencing-in-jimmy-lai-case.
Wu, Cathy Xuanxuan. 2024. “Bargaining Theory of US–China Economic Rivalry: Differentiating the Trade and Technology Wars.”The Chinese Journal of International Politics 17 (4): 323–355.
Xinhua. 2017. “Full Text: Xi’s Speech at Meeting Marking HK’s 20th Return Anniversary, Inaugural Ceremony of 5th-Term HKSAR Gov’t.” July 1. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/01/c_136409940.htm.
Yang, Jianli. 2026. “Don’t Let Jimmy Lai Become Another Liu Xiaobo.” The Hill, February 14.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
