US The President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization


Issued on: July 14, 2020


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-393), the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-76), the Hong Kong Autonomy Act of 2020, signed into law July 14, 2020, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, determine, pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) under the particular United States laws and provisions thereof set out in this order. In late May 2020, the National People’s Congress of China announced its intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. This announcement was merely China’s latest salvo in a series of actions that have increasingly denied autonomy and freedoms that China promised to the people of Hong Kong under the 1984 Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). As a result, on May 27, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that the PRC had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended, respectively, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. On May 29, 2020, I directed the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions under United States law that give Hong Kong differential treatment in relation to China.

China has since followed through on its threat to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. Under this law, the people of Hong Kong may face life in prison for what China considers to be acts of secession or subversion of state power –- which may include acts like last year’s widespread anti-government protests. The right to trial by jury may be suspended. Proceedings may be conducted in secret. China has given itself broad power to initiate and control the prosecutions of the people of Hong Kong through the new Office for Safeguarding National Security. At the same time, the law allows foreigners to be expelled if China merely suspects them of violating the law, potentially making it harder for journalists, human rights organizations, and other outside groups to hold the PRC accountable for its treatment of the people of Hong Kong.

I therefore determine that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.

In light of the foregoing, I hereby determine and order:

Section 1. It shall be the policy of the United States to suspend or eliminate different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong to the extent permitted by law and in the national security, foreign policy, and economic interest of the United States.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5722), I hereby suspend the application of section 201(a) of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended (22 U.S.C. 5721(a)), to the following statutes:
(a) section 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1152 note);​
(b) sections 203(c), 212(l), and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1153(c), 1182(l), and 1201(c), respectively);​
(c) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);​
(d) section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565(m));​
(e) the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.); and​
(f) section 1304 of title 19, United States Code.​

Sec. 3. Within 15 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies shall commence all appropriate actions to further the purposes of this order, consistent with applicable law, including, to:

(a) amend any regulations implementing those provisions specified in section 2 of this order, and, consistent with applicable law and executive orders, under IEEPA, which provide different treatment for Hong Kong as compared to China;​
(b) amend the regulation at 8 CFR 212.4(i) to eliminate the preference for Hong Kong passport holders as compared to PRC passport holders;​
(c) revoke license exceptions for exports to Hong Kong, reexports to Hong Kong, and transfers (in-country) within Hong Kong of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, that provide differential treatment compared to those license exceptions applicable to exports to China, reexports to China, and transfers (in-country) within China;​
(d) consistent with section 902(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246), terminate the export licensing suspensions under section 902(a)(3) of such Act insofar as such suspensions apply to exports of defense articles to Hong Kong persons who are physically located outside of Hong Kong and the PRC and who were authorized to receive defense articles prior to the date of this order;​
(e) give notice of intent to suspend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (TIAS 98-121);​
(f) give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (TIAS 99-418 );​
(g) take steps to end the provision of training to members of the Hong Kong Police Force or other Hong Kong security services at the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement Academies;​
(h) suspend continued cooperation undertaken consistent with the now-expired Protocol Between the U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America and Institute of Space and Earth Information Science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earth Sciences (TIAS 09-1109);​
(i) take steps to terminate the Fulbright exchange program with regard to China and Hong Kong with respect to future exchanges for participants traveling both from and to China or Hong Kong;​
(j) give notice of intent to terminate the agreement for the reciprocal exemption with respect to taxes on income from the international operation of ships effected by the Exchange of Notes Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong (TIAS 11892);​
(k) reallocate admissions within the refugee ceiling set by the annual Presidential Determination to residents of Hong Kong based on humanitarian concerns, to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law; and​
(l) propose for my consideration any further actions deemed necessary and prudent to end special conditions and preferential treatment for Hong Kong.​

Sec. 4. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(a) Any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:​
(i) to be or have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning of individuals under the authority of, or to be or have been responsible for or involved in developing, adopting, or implementing, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Administrative Region;​
(ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:​
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Hong Kong;​
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong;​
(C) censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media; or​
(D) the extrajudicial rendition, arbitrary detention, or torture of any person in Hong Kong or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or serious human rights abuse in Hong Kong;​
(iii) to be or have been a leader or official of:​
(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii)(A), (a)(ii)​
(B), or (a)(ii)(C) of this section; or​
(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section;
(v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or​
(vi) to be a member of the board of directors or a senior executive officer of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.​

Sec. 5. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 4 of this order.

Sec. 6. The prohibitions in section 4(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 7. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 4(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, such aliens, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility of implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.

Sec. 8. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.​

Sec. 9. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec. 10. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;​
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;​
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and​
(d) The term “immediate family member” means spouses and children of any age.​

Sec. 11. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 4 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 4 of this order.

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

Sec. 13. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency; or​
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.​
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.​
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.​

Sec. 15. If, based on consideration of the terms, obligations, and expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration, I determine that changes in China’s actions ensure that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the PRC under United States law, I will reconsider the determinations made and actions taken and directed under this order.

- - -

Jesus fucking Christ, okay. I guess the gloves are completely coming off and we're just going to start trading straight-up dick-punches with the CCP.
 
A quick question; when is all of this stuff supposed to go into affect? I remember that one of Trumps speeches yesterday mentioned some action being performed over an 8 day period, but when exactly is the executive order going to be, well, IN order?
 
That's... I wish you weren't right on that, but if the president has damn near total power over anything in the US, its foreign relations, both Constitutionally as head of state and legislatively through all sorts of laws, such as the ones he cited in the opening. Expedited appeals are a given and its quite likely the judge's order will get stayed.
 
This basically seems to be Trumps attempt to arm-wrestle China in to letting Hong Kong stay the way it has been. He is betting on the economic importance of Hong Kong to PRC, which is almost entirely built on it's special status as being state-within-a-state. It remains to be seen how great that economic importance really is to China.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Uranus Pink
I'm not up on this situation but if China is as hollowed out & weak as I've heard they'll have to come to terms with us at some point, right? We're both too big a percentage of each other's economy to stop doing business. When I think of this situation, my mind reflexively casts it as a giant, overly theatric renegotiation of our positions.
 
One of the biggest issues in the Cold War was that everyone thought the USSR was bigger and badder than it really was, and yes, that was true for both East and West. Once people finally realized that it wasn't quite the juggernaut they were fearing/proud of, it pretty much collapsed under the weight of its extinguished bravado. Afghanistan really punctured any notions of invulnerability it might have had, and when you've been shoveling money into the military non-stop and neglecting any actual economy... the bottom just fell out. China is a in a better position than the USSR was in the 1980's thanks to Deng creating an actual economy, but it still isn't a good one. All someone on the borders has to do is call their bluff. And yes, we are re-evaluating our views of China, because their weaknesses have all gone public for the first time in a major way.
 
I'm not up on this situation but if China is as hollowed out & weak as I've heard they'll have to come to terms with us at some point, right? We're both too big a percentage of each other's economy to stop doing business. When I think of this situation, my mind reflexively casts it as a giant, overly theatric renegotiation of our positions.

The average Chinese is too blinded by nationalism to admit that their country is worse than others like the US or that they're actively making other countries worse with their thievery and aggression in places like the South China sea. So there is little chance they'll ever accept that they need to make concessions to anyone they've wronged and so little chance of ever coming to terms with what they've done to other countries. They have concentration camps going with possible organ harvesting and the Chinese aren't even willing to say that maybe that's a bad thing, tho that's also possibly due to them expecting to lose a kidney if they criticize the camps.

As well, the US has no need to be doing business with China. The US can't make much selling to China as it is, what with all the piracy that goes on in addition to the already poor economy there for the average citizen, so people aren't making fortunes selling their American products to the Chinese. Decoupling is not terribly hard, especially when you consider other countries like Vietnam and India are nearby and eager to setup sweatshops for American companies wanting them. There is zero benefit to having economic ties to China.

It'd be nice if all this was just theatrics, but it's more that China is returning to a Maoist style regime with a population that's lived under such intense censorship for so long that they'll even praise the Chinese response to Tienanmen square. They aren't going to renegotiate any time soon so the more likely scenario is the US and others abandon economic ties to try and starve the beast.
 
Unfortunately for us, the Middle Kingdom is eternal in the eyes of the Chinese. A Century of Humiliation is nothing compared to thousands of years of existence at the center of the world to them. And, from their perspective, why should they think differently? China has outlasted its conquerors, outlasted the foreign devils who colonized, and will outlast this latest thing. It matters not who the Emperor is or what title he has, so long as he leads China. The Little Red Book has replaced the Mandate of Heaven? So what, Mao is still Emperor in all but name, with His book as His Mandate. The Chinese are the world's greatest masters of rationalizing and lying to themselves, and the only thing that could possibly put an end to that is their entire nation being destroyed. And I don't mean conquered. I mean the whole place getting razed to the ground and its people subjected to ruthless, methodical genocide.
 
And, from their perspective, why should they think differently?

This is what a lot of neolib and neocon foreign policy retards don't get. The same happened with Russia and Ukraine. They think the established order is how history always was, when there is really a lot more going on in the minds of many countrymen when considering their placement in the world.

Not that that makes their current position any better. China still thinks it has a legitimate blue water naval tradition because of shit like Zheng He, for instance. Really, all they've got are tens of millions of bugmen to throw at their problems. A naval engagement with China would be like spanking an unruly child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jje100010001
if he is found having any dealings with China?
Uhhh I don't know if you haven't been paying attention but..it is very much known that Hunter has had extensive dealings with China..ones that make everything in the Ukraine look like a back alley cocaine deal.
 
I'm not up on this situation but if China is as hollowed out & weak as I've heard they'll have to come to terms with us at some point, right?
At the risk of sounding like CCP shill, these articles and thinkpieces about China being a paper tiger set to collapse any second now™ have been appearing for he last twenty years or so.
IMHO it's all pure, unadulterated cope sold to the middle/higher functionary classes as the West descends into a Brazil-style hyperfavela with crappy weather/Islamicized mix of Brazzaville and Beirut.

Also, consider how much actual control Trump has over the State Department and except lots and lots of stonewalling and malicious compliance by the bureaucrats working there.
 
At the risk of sounding like CCP shill, these articles and thinkpieces about China being a paper tiger set to collapse any second now™ have been appearing for he last twenty years or so.
IMHO it's all pure, unadulterated cope sold to the middle/higher functionary classes as the West descends into a Brazil-style hyperfavela with crappy weather/Islamicized mix of Brazzaville and Beirut.

Also, consider how much actual control Trump has over the State Department and except lots and lots of stonewalling and malicious compliance by the bureaucrats working there.
That being said, often times these same institutions advocate for “more engagement” with China, even though that engagement is what allows them to exploit the current economic system and the goodwill/greed of these uninformed functionary classes.

Trump is at least imposing costs on China for their behavior, though the possibility and strength of his second mandate is what really counts.

I forgot, but how many Obama-era holdovers are still in the State department?
 
That being said, often times these same institutions advocate for “more engagement” with China, even though that engagement is what allows them to exploit the current economic system and the goodwill/greed of these uninformed functionary classes.

Trump is at least imposing costs on China for their behavior, though the possibility and strength of his second mandate is what really counts.

I forgot, but how many Obama-era holdovers are still in the State department?
All of them? Almost all? One of the consequences (imo intended) of the Russia collusion accusations was that Trump couldn't fire/let go of any of Obama's people, which normally iirc is standard procedure between changing presidents.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jje100010001
All of them? Almost all? One of the consequences (imo intended) of the Russia collusion accusations was that Trump couldn't fire/let go of any of Obama's people, which normally iirc is standard procedure between changing presidents.

Being able to replace the heads of the organizations is standard, but typically the lower bureaucrats stick around from one administration to the next. Hence the concept of a "deep state".

The collusion accusations tied Trump's people's hands so they couldn't direct the bureaucrats as would have been normal (since even ordinary actions done on Trump's behalf could have been interpreted as reason to be investigated Flynn style) and allowed them to treat it as scandalous to so much as inch towards normalizing relations with countries like Russia. Even mentioning that terrorists were wanting to use bombs disguised as laptops resulted in bureaucrats leaking to news organizations, as though this was evidence that Trump was Russia's servant.

There were also plenty stories of cabinet members supposedly talking of invoking the 25th(?) amendment on Trump and Rosenstein being willing to wear a wire when talking to Trump (these stories weren't created out of thin air). So the collusion investigation didn't quite have the effect of not allowing Trump to put his own people in place, so much as forcing people into either staying neutral in how they interacted with Trump or positioning themselves as his enemy. It also meant that politically he had less power with the Republicans in congress, you had plenty senators still pretending at the time that Mueller's investigation was acting appropriately and wouldn't dare question any of their conduct until the past few months.

The greatest damage of the Russia collusion story was political, distorting the lines bureaucrats would feel comfortable crossing.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Back