Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. His crimes, according to Hong Kong authorities, were “collusion with foreign forces” and “hostile activities.” But who are these “foreign hostile forces”? In Beijing’s narrative, they are primarily the U.S. — and, by extension, the democratic world. That uncomfortable truth carries a deeper implication: If Washington is cast as the alleged co-conspirator in Lai’s “crime,” then the United States cannot simply stand aside as a distant observer. America is, in the eyes of the Chinese state, part of the story. That means it also bears responsibility for how the story ends. The lesson of recent history is sobering. In 2017, during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo died in Chinese custody from liver cancer. Despite appeals from governments and human rights advocates around the world, the Chinese authorities refused to let him travel abroad for treatment. The free world failed to secure even that minimal humanitarian concession.
Liu’s death was more than a personal tragedy. It marked a moral defeat for the democratic world — a moment when the most basic principle of human dignity was subordinated to geopolitical calculation and diplomatic caution. Now, nearly a decade later, the U.S. faces another such test. Jimmy Lai is 78 years old. He has spent years in detention under harsh conditions. If he dies in prison, it will not simply be another entry in a human rights report; it will be a symbolic moment, a signal that even the world’s leading democracy cannot protect those whom it openly calls friends and allies. But this time, circumstances are different. And the United States has more leverage than it did in 2017.
Both Trump and Xi Jinping are transactional leaders. Each has shown a preference for large, dramatic deals over slow, incremental diplomacy. Both measure success in tangible outcomes: trade balances, strategic concessions, and visible political wins. Trump’s reported April visit to China offers an opening. The geopolitical environment is shifting in ways that could increase Beijing’s incentives to reach an understanding with Washington. Japan’s recent election has strengthened political forces advocating constitutional revision, including potential changes to Article Nine — the “peace clause” that has defined Japan’s postwar military posture. If Japan moves toward becoming a more conventional military power, tensions between Beijing and Tokyo are likely to intensify.
Chinese strategic culture has long emphasized the principle of “befriend the distant, strike the near.” If tensions with Japan increase, Beijing may seek to stabilize relations with the U.S. to avoid facing pressure from two powerful rivals at once. In such a context, a humanitarian gesture – such as releasing Jimmy Lai – could become a low-cost concession for Beijing, especially if it is folded into a broader diplomatic or economic package. The key is to approach the issue not as a moral lecture but as a strategic opportunity.
Washington should quietly make Lai’s release a concrete objective of any high-level engagement with Beijing. It should not be framed as an ultimatum or a condition for talks, but as a deliverable – something both sides can present as a positive outcome. For Trump, the benefits are obvious. Securing Lai’s release would be a dramatic, headline-grabbing success. It would distinguish his second presidency from his first, when Liu Xiaobo died in custody. It would also provide a powerful answer to critics who argue that his foreign policy neglects human rights.
More importantly, it would demonstrate that the United States still has the ability, and the will, to protect those who stand with it. For Beijing, the costs are relatively small. Jimmy Lai is already an elderly man whose media empire has been dismantled and whose political influence has been neutralized. Releasing him on medical parole or allowing him to leave Hong Kong would not change the balance of power in the territory. But it could yield significant diplomatic goodwill at a moment when China may want to ease tensions with Washington. In other words, this is a deal that both sides could live with.
If Lai dies in prison, the consequences will be far more damaging. It would reinforce the perception, in Hong Kong, Taiwan and beyond, that American promises of support carry little practical weight — proof that even those accused of “colluding” with the United States, like Lai, are ultimately disposable in the eyes of the very country named as their alleged partner. It would deepen cynicism among democratic activists worldwide, and hand Beijing a propaganda victory. For Trump personally, the stakes are just as high. History will inevitably compare the fate of Jimmy Lai with that of Liu Xiaobo. If another prominent pro-democracy figure dies in Chinese custody during his presidency, it will overshadow any trade deal or diplomatic achievement.
But if Lai walks free, the narrative changes. It becomes a story of leverage used wisely, of a life saved, and of American power exercised for a moral purpose without sacrificing strategic interests. In diplomacy, the most meaningful victories are often the simplest ones: a prisoner released, a life spared, a symbol preserved. Jimmy Lai’s fate is not sealed. But time is running out. President Trump has an opportunity—perhaps the last one—to ensure that this story ends differently.
Jianli Yang