Acquittal Undermines Efforts Against Transnational Repression
This week, a jury acquitted Henry Litang Liang of charges that he acted and conspired to act as an unregistered Chinese agent, by providing information—such as pictures and details of pro-democracy protestors and “dissidents”—to officials of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the United States. His acquittal is a deeply concerning outcome that sets a dangerous precedent for transnational repression. This case was not merely about a single individual, but a broader campaign of intimidation aimed at silencing voices critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The verdict undermines efforts to hold accountable those who engage in harassment, threats, and violence on behalf of authoritarian regimes.
Liang’s acquittal is especially concerning to those, such as prominent pro-democracy activist Frances Hui, who were personally targeted and harassed as a result of Liang’s actions. In response to the verdict, Hui wrote, “[Liang’s] work to expose the identities, activities, and affiliations of pro-democracy activists and Taiwan supporters to the PRC is part of a broader pattern of transnational repression—an ongoing campaign by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to stifle dissent worldwide.” Indeed, this outcome illustrates how difficult it is for those facing transnational repression to effectively counter it, in part due to perpetrators’ plausible deniability, an absence of systemic protections, and a lack of public awareness and understanding of the issue.
The harassment of Ms. Hui was not an isolated incident. It must be understood in the broader pattern of Chinese government efforts to intimidate, harass, and suppress dissent, even on U.S. soil. The U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly identified and prosecuted cases of transnational repression, where individuals acting on behalf of or aligned with the CCP target activists, journalists, and dissidents abroad. The fact that Liang’s actions were not viewed through this lens ignores the well-documented reality of such repression.
Witness testimony and evidence presented in court demonstrated that Liang’s attack on Hui was not random but targeted—aimed at silencing a prominent critic of the CCP. The prosecution presented extensive evidence of Liang’s actions, including text messages and phone calls with a range of officials working at Chinese consulates. In 2019, after speaking with a PRC official at the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council at the Chinese consulate in New York, Liang co-founded an organization called the New England Alliance for the Peaceful Reunification of China (“reunification” is the CCP-promoted term for the annexation of Taiwan, which is currently independent from China) and provided a “work summary” of the organization’s activities directly to two PRC officials.
His work was not limited to merely advocating for the occupation of Taiwan: in one example, the prosecution provided evidence that Liang spoke on the phone with a Chinese government official for twelve minutes, then sent the same official a list of individuals working for a pro-Taiwan community organization. Also in 2019, Liang attended pro-Hong Kong protests and filmed the attendees, then sent pictures and video to PRC officials with messages identifying them, such as “[t]he guy holding the microphone ([Individual 6]) is the rascal who damaged the national flags last year.”
Liang’s actions are characteristic of the methods frequently used by PRC officials and pro-CCP actors against Chinese activists and human rights defenders. Surveillance of protestors and exposure of their identities is a constant threat—following the White Paper Protests in 2022, U.S.-based international students who has been identified as protestors (in some cases due to reports by pro-CCP students on campus, particularly members of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association), reported that Chinese government officials had called and threatened their families back home in order to force them to stay silent. This phenomenon has only worsened over the past several years, and has led to the targeting of Chinese diaspora members all over the world, including the UK and Japan. In 2023, surveillance escalated into violence at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco, leaving several well-known Chinese democracy activists bloody.
Yet despite the many examples that demonstrate how coordinated action by pro-CCP individuals within these countries has directly led to the targeted harassment of anyone who voices opposition against the Party, the victims have had limited success in protecting themselves or stopping these individuals from carrying out their activities. In 2024, a student at Berklee College of Music was found guilty of harassing and stalking a classmate, such as threatening to “chop [her] [expletive] hands off” in retaliation if she continued participating in protest actions. However, the Berklee case was the exception, not the norm. The great majority of cases go unreported, and those that are, often are met with limited assistance from law enforcement. Because the main threat for many victims is exposure of their identities, many victims are unwilling to risk exposure by speaking out about their experiences.
Beyond this specific case, Liang’s acquittal sends a dangerous message to activists and dissidents in the United States. It signals that those who engage in violence and intimidation against critics of the Chinese government may evade accountability. This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals who speak out against authoritarian regimes may fear that the U.S. legal system will not protect them. The United States has long positioned itself as a bastion of free expression, but the outcome of this case undermines that commitment. The Chinese government and its proxies closely watch how democratic societies respond to repression within their own borders. If perpetrators face no real consequences, it encourages further aggression against activists in exile. This verdict effectively gives a green light to more sophisticated and aggressive forms of transnational repression.
The acquittal of Henry Litang Liang is a miscarriage of justice that highlights the urgent need for stronger legal protections against transnational repression. Democratic countries such as the United States must take a firm stance against foreign-backed intimidation and ensure that those who engage in such acts are held accountable. Law enforcement, the judiciary, and policymakers must recognize the broader implications of these cases and strengthen legislation to better protect activists and dissidents. The failure to convict Liang is not just a failure for activists like Hui, but a failure for the principles of democracy and justice that the United States claims to uphold.