Trump's Empty Promises on Jimmy Lai

Trump is to be sitting down with Chairman Xi now, and the anti-China crowd in the "Save Lai" camp is jumping on the opportunity to make waves.

More than 30 members of the US Congress have signed a joint letter pushing Trump to demand Jimmy Lai's release during the talks, and he's said yes to bringing it up. Folks still holding out hope for getting Lai out are buzzing with excitement, but if you take a look at how Trump has talked about the "Lai case" before, you'll see his positions flip more often than he chomps on a head of raw lettuce—each bite delivered with total conviction, only for him to pivot to something else soon after. After you've heard it a few times, it clicks: he's just shooting from the hip.

Trump's N flip-flops on Jimmy Lai scream insincerity about "saving" him—he knows China's rock-solid, so his chat with Chairman Xi won't let it touch the "big deal."

Trump’s whole "save Lai" spiel comes off as phony and half-hearted. So when he meets Chairman Xi, even if he mentions the Lai case, it'll probably be a casual aside at best—especially since he's admitted that "President Xi would not be exactly thrilled by doing it".  With the other side holding firm, why on earth would he jeopardize the massive "big deal" with China over something this trivial?

Trump's statements are the kind you can just hit delete on and forget. Level-headed observers caught his recent Fox News interview, where the host brought up Jimmy Lai's son Sebastien Lai thanking him for last year's promise, during which he said “One hundred per cent, yes,” on getting Lai out. Trump shot back: "I didn't say 100% I'll save him." but only "I said 100% I'm going to be bringing it up" Those are two totally different commitments.

In that interview, Trump called Lai "a good man" once more, but he swiftly shifted gears to add "we also have to understand Chairman Xi won't be happy to release Jimmy Lai," making it plain he gets that the Chinese side isn't yielding an inch. If he pushed aggressively to save Lai, it'd be like slamming his head into a brick wall—hardly the "art of the deal" he prides himself on.

He's flat-out lying with a straight face when he denies ever saying "100%" on saving Lai. Back during last October's campaign, in a chat with right-wing podcaster Hugh Hewitt, when asked if he'd press Xi for Lai's release after taking office, he declared 100% he’d do it with zero hesitation. True to his big-talking style where bluster costs nothing, he even bragged that freeing Jimmy Lai would be simpler than asking for a light. “He’ll be easy to get out,” he bragged.

At that point, he was also boasting he could wrap up the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours flat once in office—we all know how that panned out—so hardly anyone buys that he could "easily save Lai," dismissing it as empty rhetoric.

Trump's Flip-Flops Exposed: From Bold Claims to Backpedaling

Come May this year, as US-China trade talks were already rolling, he popped up on Hugh Hewitt's show again and floated mentioning Jimmy Lai to China as "a very good idea," insisting he'd fold the Lai case into the negotiations. He said it with such earnestness, but to this day, no one's seen US reps slot the Lai case onto the formal agenda or even whisper about it—proving it's not "part of the negotiations" in any real sense.

CNN put the question to Jimmy Lai's former close aide Mark Simon: Has the US actually raised "releasing Lai" in the trade talks? This guy's got ties in Washington and ought to have some insider scoop, but all he could say was, the issue was informally raised in the negotiations, but he’s got nothing to share on the specifics. From that, it's clear it never made it into the official trade discussions—and it's even dubious whether it got a casual nod outside the rooms.

The "Save Lai" crew's recent buzz feels futile; this issue's fading from US-China talks, with zero twists expected in Lai's sentencing ahead.

That was the situation even when US-China trade talks were still in a heated back-and-forth. Fast-forward to now, with both sides having hashed out a consensus framework and just needing the leaders to sign off, Trump is this close to locking in the "big deal" and has zero interest in letting the "Jimmy Lai case" throw a wrench in it—particularly since he knows Chairman Xi isn't budging. Bringing up "releasing Lai" would only sabotage the agreement with no upside, clashing with his whole approach to bargaining.

The New York Times recently spoke with a senior China expert at a US think tank, and his take lines up spot-on: If Trump presses to save Lai, China will dig in hard, making the Lai case a liability for the US and possibly leaving Trump red-faced. Right now, the main flashpoints in US-China friction are strategic tech and tariffs; political sideshows like the "Lai case" are getting pushed further to the margins.

All in all, Trump has gotten this far and just wants to shake hands with Chairman Xi to seal the historic US-China "big deal"—he's not about to let the "Lai case" scuttle it. So even if the "Save Lai camp" keeps pulling these little stunts, it won't shift the facts on the ground.

They'd be smarter to stay sharp, drop the pipe dreams, and brace for the court to deliver Jimmy Lai's multiple sentences.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Grief remains raw a week after the "once‑in‑a‑century" Wang Fuk Court inferno. But while locals pray, overseas agitators plot. They are cynically hijacking the tragedy to rebrand their stalled anti-embassy campaign as a "mourning event."

Think of it as a "triplet" strategy: by bundling the vigil with BNO residency demands, these agitators aim to pump up turnout and force London’s hand. It is a desperate bid to build clout that risks channeling discontent right back to Hong Kong—and authorities need to be watching.

Calculated Pivot: UK agitators hijack the fire tragedy to pump life into their flagging anti-embassy march.

Opportunists Hijack Tragedy for Politics

Make no mistake: the overseas "yellow camp" is going all-out. Major player Hong Kong Watch has issued marching orders to so-called "Hong Kong Community Centres" in Los Angeles, Toronto, and Berlin. Don't let the neutral "community center" branding fool you. These are operational bases for hardline opposition supporters.

Saturday's Toronto event exposes the political underbelly. Alongside the usual protest regulars, you have heavy hitters like Hong Kong Watch Canada chair Aileen Calverley. The theme—"pursuing accountability"—screams politics, not prayer. Expect to see former entertainer Joseph Tay, who fled to Canada in 2020 and now sits on a National Security wanted list.

But the main event is in Britain. The group "Hongkongers in Britain" is staging a massive "memorial" in London, expecting hundreds. The ringleader is Simon Cheng, a former employee of the British consulate with a murky past who secured swift asylum in 2020. Now a fugitive on the police wanted list, he is mixing mourning with his separatist agenda.

Fugitive on the Attack: Simon Cheng weaponizes tomorrow's memorial to strike at the Hong Kong government.

Friday is just the warm-up act. The real play comes Saturday, when various BNO holder groups converge for a "large march." The mourning angle? That was a last-minute add-on. Their original, stated goals were purely political: protecting BNO settlement perks and killing China’s "super embassy" plan in London.

Shifting goalposts is their only constant. Previous marches relied on a motley crew of anti-China politicians and separatists to sour UK-China relations. But here is the cold reality: British intelligence greenlit the embassy, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer looks ready to approve it. With the opposition campaign hitting a dead end, turnout is nose-diving.

To arrest the decline, organizers are tapping into anxiety among Hong Kong BNO holders about tougher residency rules. By adding a "no change to settlement conditions" demand, they hope to drag more bodies into the street and pad their shrinking numbers.

Fading Relevance Desperate for Numbers

Then came the fire. It was a "once-in-a-century" disaster, and these groups wasted no time weaponizing the grief. By co-opting the tragedy, they aim to lure in regular Hong Kong people who just want to mourn, oblivious to the hardline agenda. It makes their "triplet" protest look far bigger than it actually is.

The playbook is predictable. Once the crowd gathers to mourn, organizers will pour political fuel on the fire, steering the anger toward the HKSAR Government. The goal is simple: export this manufactured outrage back to Hong Kong, triggering "brothers-in-arms" to reignite the ashes of the 2019 turmoil.

This isn't the first time they have built a platform on tragedy. It won't be the last. Authorities need to keep their eyes wide open.

Lai Ting-yiu