The United States government’s Monday decision to impose sanctions on six senior officials from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Chinese mainland showed a blatant contempt for international law, and is an act of provocation.

The move, part of Washington’s grand strategy to contain China, represented yet another calculated geopolitical maneuver aimed at damaging Hong Kong’s reputation, undermining its institutional autonomy, and encroaching on China’s sovereign authority.

These six officials, entrusted with formulating or executing national security policy, are being unjustly targeted for carrying out duties that fall squarely within their constitutional and legal mandates. The sanctions are emblematic not of a legitimate concern for human rights but of the geopolitical anxieties that shape current US foreign policy in an increasingly multipolar world.

The National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), which was cited by the US government for its action, was not an arbitrary imposition but a constitutionally grounded response to a significant legal and political crisis. The violent unrest that engulfed Hong Kong in 2019-20 — commonly referred to as the “Black-clad riots” — exposed a glaring legislative void in the city’s security framework. Restoring order and protecting the safety of Hong Kong people amid escalating violence required urgent legal measures. The NSL was enacted not in defiance of the Basic Law but by it, filling a vital security gap to preserve public order, protect national sovereignty, and uphold the rights of Hong Kong residents to live without fear of politically motivated violence.

READ MORE: HKSAR govt strongly condemns so-called US 'sanctions'

The officials now sanctioned by the US played a central role in implementing this law, using tools available within the legal system to address threats to public safety and the constitutional order of Hong Kong. Their actions were not only lawful and legitimate but also subject to procedural safeguards, judicial oversight, and evidentiary standards. Arrests, prosecutions, and other legal actions carried out under the NSL have been reviewed by independent courts and have adhered to the principles of due process under common law. To depict these measures as authoritarian repression is not only a misrepresentation but a deliberate distortion of the legal and political context in which they occurred.

The US characterization of these officials’ actions as “transnational repression” is particularly disingenuous. The notion, as employed by the US State Department, relies on a selective and contradictory understanding of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Washington has long invoked similar principles under statutes such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Global Magnitsky Act, using them to extend its legal reach beyond its borders. Condemning China for adopting parallel approaches reveals not so much a concern for legality but discomfort with the growing assertiveness of non-Western legal systems that challenge US hegemony.

This inconsistency underscores a broader trend in US foreign policy: the instrumental use of “human rights” rhetoric to serve strategic ends. Reports issued by the US State Department on Hong Kong are frequently based on ideologically aligned sources, such as Sinophobes, certain media outlets or political figures, selective anecdotes, and politicized narratives. These reports often omit critical elements such as the existence of judicial oversight, the procedural fairness embedded in Hong Kong’s legal system, and the public support for measures that restore civic stability. Such omissions contribute to a skewed portrayal of Hong Kong’s governance as inherently “repressive”, when it actually functions within a structured and legally coherent framework that aligns with international norms.

US sanctions, in this context, are not a response to misconduct but a punitive reaction to political resilience. The officials targeted are not ideologues but experienced civil servants who execute their responsibilities with administrative discipline and constitutional fidelity. Their designation as sanctioned individuals does not reflect any verified wrongdoing; it represents their refusal to yield to foreign political pressure. This abuse and retributive use of sanctions reveals the fragility of the US’ “moral high ground”, which increasingly relies on coercion rather than dialogue, and which imposes ideological conformity in place of legal pluralism.

Moreover, the broader implications of these sanctions are troubling. They signal that the US is prepared to redefine the boundaries of legitimate governance, not based on universal legal principles but on alignment with Western ideological preferences. This undermines the legitimacy of diverse political and legal traditions, suggesting that only “liberal democracies” possess the authority to define lawful conduct. Such a stance is incompatible with the evolving international order, where governance models reflect a range of historical, cultural, and institutional foundations.

Hong Kong’s legal officials have been scapegoated not because of unlawful behavior but because of what they represent: the triumphant reassertion of state authority, the restoration of civic order, and the preservation of public security in the face of foreign interference, particularly from Western nations. Their actions restored the conditions necessary for effective governance, enabling the city to move beyond the chaos of 2019-20 and resume its path toward stability and development. To sanction these officeholders who have helped to facilitate these achievements is to reject the very principles of sovereignty and constitutional governance that the international system is meant to uphold.

READ MORE: US ramps up sanctions on Russia's oil, gas, banking sectors

In targeting these individuals, the US has chosen to prioritize ideological confrontation over engagement. This move further erodes the credibility of Washington and the “rules-based international order” it vigorously promotes, and draws attention its hegemonic approach. The legacy of these Hong Kong officials will not be defined by punitive measures imposed from abroad but by their commitment to lawful governance, public security, and the preservation of national dignity. Their continued service stands as a testament to the strength of Hong Kong’s institutions and the enduring sovereignty of the Chinese nation.

The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.