News Desk
A newly released report by the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) has renewed scrutiny of what it describes as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) expanding campaign of transnational repression.
Published on June 4 alongside a congressional hearing on the issue, the report argues that Beijing’s efforts to silence critics no longer stop at China’s borders but increasingly extend into democratic societies through intimidation, censorship, legal pressure and influence operations.
The report portrays what it calls a systematic strategy designed to shape global narratives about China while discouraging criticism from activists, dissidents and diaspora communities.
According to the CECC, tactics that were once regarded as isolated incidents have evolved into a coordinated international challenge affecting human rights, democratic institutions and freedom of expression.
The findings come as governments in several countries, particularly the United States, continue to examine allegations that Chinese authorities and individuals linked to Beijing have sought to influence political discourse, pressure critics abroad and monitor overseas communities.
A campaign that extends beyond China’s borders
According to the CECC report, the CCP seeks to control narratives not only within China but also internationally, viewing information management as central to political stability and the Party’s long-term survival.
The report argues that Beijing has developed what it describes as a broad toolkit of coercive measures directed at individuals living outside China.
These methods allegedly include physical intimidation, surveillance, threats against relatives still living in China, legal action, online harassment, censorship campaigns and efforts to pressure individuals into returning to the country.
The CECC states that such activities target a wide range of communities, including Hong Kong democracy activists, Uyghurs, Tibetans, former Chinese government officials and political dissidents residing overseas.
Rather than relying solely on traditional diplomatic channels, the report argues that the campaign increasingly combines state power with digital technologies, legal mechanisms and influence operations capable of reaching individuals across multiple jurisdictions.
The commission contends that these practices undermine the ability of people living in democratic societies to speak freely without fear of retaliation.
Digital harassment and psychological pressure
One of the cases highlighted in the report concerns Carmen Lau, a former Hong Kong district councillor who now serves as Senior International Advocacy Associate at the Washington-based Hong Kong Democracy Council.
Lau, who is currently listed as wanted by Hong Kong authorities under the city’s national security legislation, testified that anonymous individuals circulated letters to her neighbours in the United Kingdom containing AI-generated deepfake images falsely portraying her as a sex worker.
According to the CECC report, Lau described the campaign as gender-based harassment designed to intimidate and discredit female activists.
She told the commission that similar tactics had also targeted the wife of another former Hong Kong politician, as well as women within Tibetan and Uyghur advocacy communities.
The report presents the case as an example of how emerging technologies are allegedly being incorporated into transnational repression campaigns, allowing harassment to become increasingly personalised while extending its psychological impact beyond the intended target.
Influence beyond individuals
The report argues that China’s overseas activities are not confined to individual activists but also seek to influence international organisations and political institutions.
Among the examples cited is the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), a network comprising nearly 300 legislators from more than 40 legislatures that focuses on policy challenges related to Beijing.
According to CECC testimony from IPAC Executive Director Luke de Pulford, Chinese pressure may have contributed to unusually low attendance at the alliance’s summit held at the European Parliament in November 2025.
De Pulford told the commission that only two of twelve invited African parliamentary delegates ultimately attended the meeting. He suggested that interference linked to Beijing may have played a role.
The summit also featured a speech by Taiwan Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim at the European Parliament, prompting criticism from China’s Mission to the European Union.
Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory and strongly opposes actions that could be interpreted as recognising Taiwanese sovereignty.
De Pulford further testified that Chinese pressure had complicated IPAC’s efforts to expand its parliamentary network in parts of Africa. According to his testimony, one of the organisation’s Zambian co-chairs resigned following the summit after facing pressure linked to Beijing.
Courts as instruments of pressure
The CECC report also argues that legal proceedings have become another instrument of transnational pressure.
One example involves Ma Ju, a Hui Muslim activist who was sued by a Chinese state-owned enterprise in a United States court in 2023.
According to the commission, the lawsuit sought damages of $12.5 million. Ma rejected the allegations, describing them as fabricated and arguing that the legal action was intended to exhaust his financial resources and discourage his activism.
The report characterises the case as an example of what legal experts describe as “lawfare”—the use of litigation to impose financial, emotional and psychological burdens rather than simply resolve legal disputes.
According to the commission, such cases raise broader questions about whether existing legal frameworks are equipped to recognise and address politically motivated litigation originating from foreign governments or entities.
Families become targets
The report also highlights cases in which relatives remaining in China or Hong Kong have allegedly become targets because of activism carried out abroad.
One of the most prominent examples concerns Anna Kwok, a United States-based Hong Kong pro-democracy activist.
Earlier this year, her father, Kwok Yin-sang, was sentenced to eight months in prison in Hong Kong on a national security-related offence.
In written testimony submitted to the commission, Anna Kwok warned lawmakers that transnational repression increasingly affects not only activists themselves but also their families.
She argued that unless stronger measures are adopted, intimidation campaigns could expand further, with economic pressure, threats and what she described as “hostage taking” becoming more common tactics directed at overseas critics.
The CECC cites such cases as evidence that pressure against relatives has become an important component of Beijing’s alleged efforts to discourage political activism beyond China’s borders.
States respond with new legislation
The report also examines responses emerging at the state level within the United States.
According to the commission, Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Nebraska have enacted legislation intended to address aspects of transnational repression and foreign influence.
Nebraska’s legislation, signed into law by Governor Jim Pillen in June 2025, established both the Foreign Adversary and Terrorist Agent Registration Act and the Crush Transnational Repression in Nebraska Act.
State Senator Eliot Bostar, who introduced the legislation, told the commission that Nebraska officials had themselves been contacted by representatives linked to the Chinese government during the legislative process.
The legislation makes it a felony for agents acting on behalf of designated foreign adversaries to conduct unauthorised law-enforcement activities within Nebraska, including operating unofficial overseas police stations.
The issue gained national attention in 2023 after federal prosecutors charged two Chinese nationals with operating an alleged Chinese police outpost in Manhattan on behalf of China’s Ministry of Public Security.
One of the defendants later pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered Chinese agent.
Growing recognition of an emerging challenge
The CECC hearing also heard testimony from Stephen Cox, counsel to Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy and the state’s former Attorney General.
Although Cox said Alaska had not experienced significant reported incidents, he warned that transnational repression often appears in subtle forms rather than obvious criminal acts.
According to his written testimony, such activity may resemble harassment, intimidation directed at students, pressure against families following political demonstrations, digital surveillance or coercive telephone calls targeting relatives abroad.
Cox argued that many of these activities intersect with responsibilities traditionally handled by state governments, including public safety, infrastructure protection and consumer protection.
The CECC report also references a separate study published by The Heritage Foundation in March, which found that U.S. states have adopted markedly different approaches to addressing Chinese influence.
According to the report, Arkansas and Florida currently lead the country in the number of China-related state laws enacted.
An increasingly global debate
The CECC concludes that what it describes as the CCP’s transnational repression and influence operations have evolved into a wider international issue affecting democratic institutions, freedom of expression and the rights of diaspora communities.
According to the commission, the combination of digital harassment, legal pressure, surveillance, intimidation and influence campaigns reflects an increasingly sophisticated approach to extending political control beyond national borders.
While Beijing has consistently rejected allegations of overseas interference and maintains that its actions are conducted in accordance with Chinese law and international norms, the CECC argues that the growing number of reported cases warrants continued scrutiny.
As governments, lawmakers and civil society organisations examine these allegations, the debate surrounding transnational repression is expanding beyond diplomatic tensions to broader questions about sovereignty, human rights and the protection of individuals exercising lawful freedoms outside China.
