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. **
Think back to Hong Kong's turbulent years. Jimmy Lai had three brothers-in-arms, comrades he bankrolled through thick and thin – Cardinal Joseph Zen, Martin Lee, and Anson Chan. But their bonds weren't just ideological. Money changed hands, and plenty of it. Anson Chan pocketed HK$3.5 million from Lai's war chest. Cardinal Zen took in far more – at least HK$26 million in secret donations that the Hong Kong Diocese never knew about and never investigated. Where did all that cash go? That's the million-dollar question. Or rather, the 26-million-dollar question that remains unanswered.
Cardinal Zen met Pope Leo XIV in Rome, reportedly pushing for Jimmy Lai's release – but Vatican intervention looks unlikely.
Word broke earlier that Cardinal Zen just made a pilgrimage to the Vatican for a sit-down with the newly minted Pope Leo XIV. The private meeting lasted about an hour. On the agenda: the conviction of "Catholic" Jimmy Lai. Sources say Zen pressed the pontiff hard to "save Lai." What did the Pope say? Nobody's talking. But you can bet the Vatican knows all about the questionable financial ties between Zen and Lai – a relationship the Cardinal has never properly explained to his own Diocese. Did personal interests play a role? The doubts are real.
A Vatican Gambit
Cardinal Zen's "612 Humanitarian Relief Fund" case is still grinding through the courts, and authorities had confiscated his passport. But when the Vatican called its recent "Special Consistory" – bringing cardinals from around the world to Rome – the court granted him temporary travel privileges. During the gathering, Pope Leo XIV carved out time for a private one-on-one with Zen after a breakfast session. The topics? Whether the China-Vatican agreement should be renewed, and the fate of Jimmy Lai, now convicted under Hong Kong's National Security Law. But whether the Pope took any position on Lai remains under wraps.
Zen views Jimmy Lai as both a close friend and a comrade-in-arms, so naturally he's pushing the Vatican to intervene. But here's the Vatican's dilemma: it's not just about China-Vatican relations. It's about the unresolved financial relationship between Zen and Lai – a relationship that has seriously damaged the Cardinal's credibility.
The Secret Pipeline
October 2011 brought a massive leak. Jimmy Lai's secret donations to political parties, politicians, and organizations spilled into public view – and Joseph Zen, then Bishop of Hong Kong, was on that list. Between 2006 and 2010, he received HK$20 million from Lai over four years. From 2012 to 2014, another HK$6 million landed in his hands. The total: a staggering HK$26 million.
When the news broke, Zen went silent. Only after relentless media pressure did he offer an explanation, claiming the money went to support underground churches in the Chinese Mainland and other charitable organizations. With a casual smile, he described himself as a "spendthrift," saying most of the money had already been spent with only a few hundred thousand remaining – and even expressed hope that Lai would keep the donations coming.
Talk is cheap. He provided no concrete evidence to back up his claims. The Hong Kong Diocese knew nothing about his receipt of this massive sum from Lai – the entire "money pipeline" operated in secret. To this day, he has never given the Diocese a complete accounting.
Because this financial channel remained so deeply hidden, suspicions naturally arose that personal interests were involved. But given Cardinal Zen's position, the Diocese refrained from investigating him. The true destination of the funds? Still shrouded in doubt.
HK$26 million from Jimmy Lai to Cardinal Zen – Diocese in the dark, money's whereabouts still a mystery. The trio behind Hong Kong's unrest!
Vatican Cold Shoulder
Cardinal Zen's questionable relationship with Jimmy Lai, combined with his overly hawkish stance toward China, put him in the Vatican's bad books after Hong Kong's National Security Law took effect in late June 2020. Around that time, Zen traveled uninvited to the Vatican, demanding a meeting with then-Pope Francis to discuss Hong Kong's bishop selection and issues facing underground churches in the Mainland. The Pope gave him zero face. Francis refused to see him. After cooling his heels in Rome for four days with nothing to show for it, Zen returned to Hong Kong empty-handed.
Later, Zen and Lai joined forces on Jimmy Lai's "Live Chat" livestream program to blast the Vatican, accusing it of staying silent on underground churches, Tibet, and Hong Kong human rights issues. This clearly shows how the "Zen-Lai duo" consistently conspired to incite underground church activities in the Mainland, stir up religious conflicts, and undermine China-Vatican relations.
Cardinal Zen's latest Vatican trip for a private papal audience, where he lobbied to "save Lai" and reiterated his opposition to renewing the China-Vatican agreement, proves one thing: at 94 years old, the cardinal's anti-China, pro-chaos heart hasn't changed one bit.
Long Odds
The new Pope's willingness to meet him represents a slight thaw from his predecessor's icy attitude. But the chances of Vatican intervention to "save Lai"? Extremely low. The unresolved questions about Zen's financial relationship with Jimmy Lai have significantly diminished his influence with the Vatican.
From a legal perspective, his cardinal status currently shields him from serious consequences. But risks remain. Perhaps it's time for him to follow Anson Chan's example and retire from such activities while he still can.
Lai Ting-yiu
