07-11-2025

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Hong Kong

NoticeView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: This executive notice extends for one year the national emergency concerning Hong Kong, originally declared on July 14, 2020. This continuation maintains the U.S. government's authority to impose economic sanctions and other restrictions in response to China's actions that undermine Hong Kong's autonomy.

Money: There is no specific Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score for this continuation notice. The financial impact stems from the sanctions authorized by the underlying Executive Order 13936 and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. These sanctions can freeze the U.S.-based assets of targeted individuals and financial institutions and prohibit transactions with them, potentially involving significant sums. Violations can result in civil penalties and criminal fines up to $1,000,000 and 20 years in prison.

Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. However, the policy reinforces the U.S. stance against China's actions in Hong Kong, which affects the broader diplomatic and economic relationship between the two countries. Businesses that operate in or have financial dealings with Hong Kong or sanctioned entities face significant compliance requirements and potential disruptions.

Status: The national emergency, first declared by Executive Order 13936, has been continued for one year beyond July 14, 2025. This action was taken by the President on July 10, 2025, and is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive notice formally continues a national emergency declared under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The original declaration, Executive Order 13936, responded to actions by the People's Republic of China (PRC) that fundamentally undermined the autonomy of Hong Kong. By continuing the emergency, the President maintains a legal framework to use economic sanctions and other diplomatic tools to pressure Beijing over its policies in Hong Kong. The notice itself does not add new sanctions but ensures the existing authorities remain in effect.

Core Provisions:

  • Continuation of National Emergency: The notice extends the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13936 for 1 year beyond its expiration date of July 14, 2025.
  • Basis of Action: The stated reason for the continuation is that the situation in Hong Kong, specifically actions by the PRC, "continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."
  • Underlying Authorities: This continuation keeps active the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the President to regulate economic transactions and impose sanctions. It also operates alongside the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which mandates sanctions against officials and entities responsible for eroding Hong Kong's autonomy.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The stated purpose, as detailed in the original Executive Order and this continuation notice, is to address the threat posed by China's actions in Hong Kong.

  1. To deal with the "unusual and extraordinary threat" constituted by the PRC's fundamental undermining of Hong Kong's autonomy.
  2. To hold China accountable for its aggressive actions against the people of Hong Kong, which have dismantled the city's political freedoms and judicial independence.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Finance, Technology, Trade, and Defense.
Timeline: The national emergency is continued in effect beyond July 14, 2025, for one year.
Scope: The policy impacts foreign individuals, entities, and financial institutions determined to be involved in undermining Hong Kong's autonomy. Geographically, it affects U.S.-China relations and international business conducted in Hong Kong.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Pre-Handover and Joint Declaration (1984-1997):

In 1984, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty between the U.K. and China, stipulated that Hong Kong would retain its high degree of autonomy, rights, and freedoms for 50 years after its 1997 handover to China, under the "one country, two systems" principle. The U.S. acknowledged this framework through the 1992 U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, granting Hong Kong special economic and trade status separate from mainland China.

Post-Handover and Growing Tensions (1997-2019):

For years after the handover, Hong Kong enjoyed relative autonomy. However, by the 2010s, Beijing's increasing influence and interpretation of the Basic Law (Hong Kong's mini-constitution) led to widespread public concern. This culminated in the 2014 Umbrella Movement, a series of pro-democracy protests. In 2019, a proposed extradition bill that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China sparked massive, prolonged, and sometimes violent protests, signaling a deep crisis of autonomy.

The National Security Law and U.S. Response (2020-Present):

In June 2020, Beijing bypassed Hong Kong's legislature to impose a sweeping National Security Law, criminalizing secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. This was widely seen as the end of the "one country, two systems" framework. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act with broad bipartisan support. On July 14, 2020, President Trump signed the act into law and issued Executive Order 13936, declaring a national emergency, ending Hong Kong's preferential trade status, and authorizing sanctions. The Biden administration continued this policy, and the national emergency has been extended annually.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Continued Repression: The U.S. government maintains that China continues to dismantle Hong Kong's promised autonomy and democratic institutions, justifying the extension of the emergency measures.
  • Geopolitical Strategy: The policy is a key component of the broader U.S. strategy to counter what it views as aggressive actions by the Chinese Communist Party. It serves as a tool of economic and diplomatic pressure.
  • Bipartisan Consensus: There is a strong, ongoing bipartisan consensus in Washington that the U.S. must take a firm stance against China's actions in Hong Kong. This provides political cover and impetus for the executive branch to continue the policy.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects U.S. and international companies doing business with sanctioned individuals or entities in Hong Kong and China, but has little direct impact on most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For advocates of human rights and democracy, this action represents a continued U.S. commitment to supporting those causes in Hong Kong and holding the Chinese government accountable.
  • It signals a firm U.S. foreign policy stance, which may be seen as a benefit by those concerned about China's rising global influence.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (Immediate):

  • U.S. companies and financial institutions must continue to dedicate resources to ensure compliance with the sanctions regime, navigating a complex regulatory environment to avoid steep penalties.
  • The policy contributes to ongoing friction in U.S.-China relations, which can create uncertainty for businesses and affect global supply chains.

Long-term:

  • The end of Hong Kong's preferential economic status means goods imported from Hong Kong are now labeled "Made in China" and may be subject to the same tariffs as mainland goods, potentially increasing costs for some U.S. importers.
  • The policy solidifies a new, more adversarial economic relationship with China regarding Hong Kong, which was once a stable hub for international finance.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

  • U.S. and International Financial Institutions: Banks and investment firms must ensure they do not conduct significant transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities.
  • Hong Kong Officials and Chinese Entities: Individuals and companies targeted by sanctions face asset freezes and are cut off from the U.S. financial system.
  • Companies Operating in Hong Kong: Businesses face a shifting legal and political landscape, caught between U.S. sanctions and China's National Security Law.

Secondary Groups:

  • Exporters and Importers: Those who relied on Hong Kong's previous special customs status face new tariffs and regulations.
  • Pro-Democracy Activists: While the policy is intended to support them, activists in Hong Kong face increased pressure from authorities who point to foreign interference as justification for crackdowns.

Regional Impact: The policy has no specific regional impact within the United States but is central to U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific region.

Bottom Line: For the average citizen, this is a foreign policy action with indirect effects; for businesses tied to Hong Kong, it is a significant and costly regulatory challenge.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Holding China Accountable"

Core Stance: Republicans generally advocate for a tough, confrontational stance against the Chinese Communist Party and strongly support sanctions to punish the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for sanctions against Chinese officials and entities responsible for human rights abuses and undermining Hong Kong's freedom.
  • ✓ Praise for executive actions that end preferential treatment for Hong Kong, viewing it as a necessary consequence of Beijing's actions.
  • ✗ Many Republicans argue that past administrations were not tough enough on China, leading to the current situation.

Legislative Strategy: Pushing for even stronger sanctions and introducing legislation to counter China's influence. Members often lead efforts to condemn the CCP's actions through resolutions and new bills.

Democratic Position: "Defending Democracy and Human Rights"

Core Stance: Democrats broadly support holding China accountable for its actions in Hong Kong but often emphasize a strategy that combines pressure with diplomacy and alliances.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Strong support for the Hong Kong Autonomy Act and the use of sanctions against human rights violators.
  • ✓ Emphasis on working with international allies to present a united front against Beijing's actions.
  • ⚠️ Some concern that an overly confrontational approach could lead to unintended consequences or harm the people of Hong Kong.

Legislative Strategy: Co-sponsoring sanctions legislation with Republicans, pushing for enforcement of existing laws, and calling on the administration to build international coalitions to address the issue.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to declare and continue this national emergency is based on powers delegated by Congress through two key statutes: the National Emergencies Act (NEA) of 1976 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. The constitutional foundation for Congress to pass these laws rests primarily on its enumerated powers to regulate foreign commerce and provide for the common defense.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations... To provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Constitutional Implications:

[Delegation of Powers]: Congress, through IEEPA, has lawfully delegated authority to the President to regulate international economic transactions after declaring a national emergency in response to an external threat. The NEA establishes the procedure for declaring and renewing such emergencies.
[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has historically granted the executive branch significant deference in matters of national security and foreign policy. The use of emergency powers under IEEPA has been upheld by courts in various contexts, establishing a precedent for the President's broad authority in this area.
[Federalism]: This action pertains to foreign policy and international commerce, which are domains of federal authority, and therefore does not overstep powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are unlikely to succeed. The primary legal arguments would likely center on whether the situation in Hong Kong constitutes a legitimate "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States. However, courts are generally reluctant to second-guess the President's foreign policy and national security judgments. Challenges would most likely come from individuals or companies designated for sanctions, arguing that their designation was improper, rather than a challenge to the emergency declaration itself.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to continue supporting a strong stance on Hong Kong's autonomy and to hold officials who violate human rights accountable."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact your representatives and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee to express support for holding the Chinese government accountable for its treaty violations in Hong Kong.
  • Join an Organization:
    • Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC): A U.S.-based non-profit led by Hong Kongers that advocates for pro-democracy policies.
    • Human Rights Foundation: Engages in international advocacy to support Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.
    • Campaign for Uyghurs: While focused on the Uyghur genocide, they support broader accountability for the CCP's human rights abuses.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (2022) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to reconsider the use of broad unilateral sanctions, which can harm U.S.-China relations and have unintended economic consequences."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that continued sanctions are escalating tensions with China unnecessarily or that they are not the most effective tool for promoting change.
  • Join an Organization: While few mainstream U.S. organizations actively lobby against Hong Kong-related sanctions, some groups advocate for less confrontational foreign policies or oppose the broad use of economic sanctions. Finding an organization that aligns with this specific opposition may require research into groups focused on U.S.-China trade relations or non-interventionist foreign policy.