As the United States and China begin high-level contact over tariffs, though not yet formal negotiations, in an online interview Trump, when asked, said that he would raise the case of Jimmy Lai, the jailed Hong Kong media tycoon, in trade discussions with China. For Lai, now behind bars, the news may offer a glimmer of hope: a reminder that his onetime champion has not forgotten him. Yet, according to a longtime observer of Jimmy Lai’s case, Trump’s remarks are unlikely to affect the outcome. Four reasons:
A Casual Remark, Not a Policy Pledge
First, Trump’s comment was delivered with a marked lack of urgency, echoing his tone in a previous interview with the same conservative host, Hugh Hewitt. The statement sounded offhand, almost as if he were saying, “There’s no harm in mentioning it,” rather than signaling a serious negotiating position. Last October, during the presidential election campaign, Trump was asked on Hewitt’s radio program if he would press President Xi Jinping to release Jimmy Lai should he return to office. His reply, “I would one hundred percent do that”, was tossed off with little conviction.
Recently, Donald Trump told an online interviewer he would raise Jimmy Lai’s case in US-China trade talks. A close observer on the Lai case cited four reasons why Trump is unlikely to use Lai as a bargaining chip.
A Record of Shifting Positions
Second, Trump is known for changing his stance with little warning. He has often contradicted himself, sometimes denying he ever made certain promises. If he later concludes that raising Jimmy Lai’s case is not advantageous, he could simply drop the matter, acting as if it had never come up. In Trump’s view, Lai is a spent pawn; if the issue no longer serves his interests, he will abandon it without hesitation.
A Minor Issue in a Complex Negotiation
Third, the US-China trade agenda is dominated by issues with sweeping economic and financial consequences. The fate of Jimmy Lai, for all its symbolic weight, is insignificant in this context. The case is so marginal that it would hardly register in the calculus of either side. It is difficult to imagine American negotiators expending political capital on such a peripheral matter.
Beijing’s Unyielding Position
Finally, and most importantly, Beijing’s position on the Lai case is unambiguous. As noted in a November commentary by Zhuo Wei in the state-run Ta Kung Pao, China adheres to a “three no’s” principle: no external interference in the judicial process, no concessions under foreign pressure, and no room for negotiation or deals. The core message is strict adherence to the law. Political intervention, even from foreign officials or presidents, is not tolerated. Any such attempt would be considered illegal and could result in prosecution.
In short, the case is being handled strictly according to Hong Kong laws, and Beijing has made clear that there is no room for negotiation. As the commentary put it, “there is no space for any bargaining.” Even if Trump were to intervene personally, the result would be the same: the central government will fully support the Hong Kong judiciary in handling the case impartially and according to the law.
Trump must consider Beijing’s explicit “three no’s” policy on the Lai case: all matters will be handled according to the law, with no foreign government or politician permitted to interfere. “Even if Trump intervenes personally, the result will be the same.”
Conclusion: A Gesture Without Substance
Trump’s suggestion that he will raise Lai’s case is, in the eyes of observers, little more than political theater. At this stage of the trade dispute, the United States is feeling more pressure than China and is more eager to reach a deal. It is unlikely that Trump would jeopardize broader negotiations for the sake of a “discarded pawn” like Jimmy Lai.
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Call it what you want—abduction, kidnapping, state-sponsored piracy. Trump just grabbed another country's head of state and dragged him to American soil.
Now comes the really chilling part: the theatrical production. Picture it—law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, all assembled on a judicial stage to perform what's supposed to look like legitimate justice. But everyone already knows how this play ends. The opening scene telegraphs the finale.
I've heard the inside story of what happened to Patrick Ho Chi Ping, Hong Kong's former Secretary for Home Affairs, during his time in American custody. The pressure was relentless—cooperate with the "deep state," provide the intelligence they wanted, and watch your sentence shrink. Normal procedures? Forget them.
Trump's judicial theater begins. Maduro's arraignment is pure political performance—Patrick Ho's ordeal proves fairness isn't on the menu here.
That's the same template Maduro faces now. When you're meat on the chopping board, your choices evaporate fast. Don't expect judicial fairness. Expect survival tactics.
The moment Maduro touched American soil, they shipped him straight to New York's Metropolitan Detention Center. A literal hell hole, notorious for brutal conditions and a dangerous inmate population.
Yesterday he faced his first arraignment at the Southern District Federal Court. The charge? "Narco-terrorism conspiracy." Maduro stood firm. He refused to plead guilty.
America's black prison holds Maduro now. Pressure and coercion ahead—due process won't apply.
Legal Experts Raise Red Flags
American legal experts are asking uncomfortable questions. First: where's the evidence linking Maduro to drug trafficking? Second: what gives the US military the right to conduct cross-border operations to "arrest" another nation's head of state? Third: if the arrest violated due process, does the entire case collapse? In any ordinary criminal proceeding, this wouldn't even make it to court.
Those questions make perfect legal sense. But they don't apply here. Trump plays by different rules. No rules, actually. The Justice Department leadership? His loyalists, every one of them. The judge who'll preside? Trump's call. "Justice" has become just another political weapon he wields at will. Legal sources believe the entire script is already written. The verdict came before the trial even started.
The Patrick Ho Playbook
American "justice" shows its true face in other cases too. Take Patrick Ho Chi Ping. After leaving government in 2007, he became Secretary-General of the China Energy Fund Committee, a private think tank. He worked with UN officials and counterparts across Asia and Africa, promoting energy cooperation. Then 2017 hit. Law enforcement grabbed him in New York and threw him in a detention center. The charge? Allegedly bribing senior African officials.
What happened next veered completely off the judicial highway. Ho got pulled into the vortex of American partisan warfare. Some of it traced back to Trump himself. The prosecutor handling his case deployed the classic carrot-and-stick routine. Refuse to plead guilty? Eight charges await you. Maximum penalty if convicted? Fifty years behind bars. But plead guilty and accept four conditions? Watch those charges shrink and that sentence drop dramatically.
The Deep State's Demands
One of those four conditions exposed the real game. Provide information about Trump team members who accepted bribes—including Trump himself. The prosecutor belonged to the Democratic camp, part of the "deep state" machinery, trying to force Ho to deliver dirt for attacking Trump. When Ho realized he'd been dragged into American partisan politics, he understood that failing to extract himself could lead to an even worse outcome. He made his choice: refuse to plead guilty, reject the prosecutor's conditions.
That decision saved him. Political winds shifted in America. He ultimately received just three years—and after deducting time already served, he walked out of that hell hole after barely a year. This inside story reveals an uncomfortable truth: American justice operates as a tool of dark forces, manipulated to achieve political objectives. Fairness doesn't enter the equation.
Legal sources estimate Maduro's prosecution and trial will follow the same playbook. Trump will likely deploy similar tactics to threaten Maduro, forcing him to choose between submission or greater suffering. The endgame? Getting Maduro to provide whatever Trump wants. This head of state now sits on the chopping board with zero real options left.
When Maduro's case goes to trial, expect the full theatrical production. There'll be courtroom arguments, legal jousting, dramatic moments. None of it changes the ending. The US government keeps shouting about Jimmy Lai's case being "unjust." But what America is doing to Maduro? That's a political trial show from start to finish.
Lai Ting-yiu
