U.S. treads carefully in responding to Hong Kong's new national security law

Washington's muted response to Hong Kong's national security law disappoints democracy advocates, with U.S. actions notably limited.

The U.S. has denounced Hong Kong's new national security law as a tool to potentially silence dissent both at home and abroad, but so far the action from Washington has been notably muted, disappointing those fighting for the Chinese territory's democracy and freedoms.

Since the law's swift passage on March 19, the U.S. has announced visa restrictions on an unspecified number of unnamed Hong Kong officials but taken no further action. That's a far cry from 2020, when Beijing imposed national security restrictions to end months of unrest on Hong Kong streets. The U.S. responded by hitting the city's highest-ranking officials with sanctions and depriving the territory of its preferential trading status.

While the new law, known as Article 23, now expands the Hong Kong government's powers to go after those it accuses of spying and to target dissidents anywhere in the world, Washington has been treading carefully.

The State Department declined to preview or comment on any potential actions but said it is considering all options.

Analysts suggest the Joe Biden administration may not want to rock relations with China in an election year, especially when the impact of the law might take a while to manifest itself and any punitive U.S. measures would be unlikely to bring about meaningful change.

“U.S. policymakers appear resigned to the fact that China's takeover of Hong Kong is, for all intents and purposes, complete and irreversible,” said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a research institute based in Washington.

“Moreover, it's not entirely clear that any specific actions from Washington would prompt Beijing to meaningfully reassess its approach towards Hong Kong, with Chinese policymakers having more or less signalled that Hong Kong's fate is not up for debate.”