Features

Examining Freedom of Speech in Hong Kong Through the Jimmy Lai Case

Published

1 month ago

December 23, 2025

Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily, endured 156 days of trial under the National Security Law and was preliminarily convicted on December 15, 2025, on multiple charges, including collusion with foreign forces, publishing seditious material, and other conspiracy-related offenses.

The formal sentencing hearing will not take place until January 12, 2026, to determine the length of his imprisonment. Nevertheless, this verdict sends an undeniable signal and warning to Hong Kong residents: freedom of speech in Hong Kong is running out of time.

Freedom of Speech Is Not What It Used to Be

Since Hong Kong’s handover, the SAR government has retained much of the administrative culture and governance practices from the British colonial period. Before the enactment of the National Security Law, freedom of speech in Hong Kong was relatively broad. Media outlets could openly criticize officials, question policies, and publish investigative reports without immediate legal repercussions. Newspapers like Apple Daily thrived on sharp political commentary and incisive editorials; civil society and protest activities also operated within a certain degree of freedom.

Of course, freedom of speech was never absolute. Citizens still had to avoid baseless defamation or personal attacks. Overall, Hong Kong possessed a culture of debate, satire, and investigative reporting. Cartoonists could mock leaders, columnists could challenge policy decisions, and social media offered a relatively open platform for political discussion and engagement. Civil society could organize forums and large-scale peaceful marches, such as the 2003 anti-Article 23 protest that attracted 500,000 participants. The judiciary at the time was relatively independent, so criticizing officials or exposing corruption through the press did not automatically constitute a crime.

However, with the case of Jimmy Lai, the closure of Apple Daily in 2021, and the full implementation of the National Security Law, freedom of speech in Hong Kong has steadily declined. Media professionals, activists, and even ordinary citizens have begun to self-censor, and public discourse has visibly contracted. Hong Kong, once willing to expose wrongdoing, criticize the government, and conduct in-depth investigations, now bears little resemblance to its former self.

The Core Issues of Injustice in the Case

Under the forceful implementation of the National Security Law by the central government, the official narrative around Jimmy Lai has been uniform: “Lai sought foreign sanctions and cooperated with anti-China forces abroad,” “foreign powers glorified Lai’s actions in the name of human rights and freedom,” or “freedom of speech cannot override national security.” There is no room for debate. Nobody wants the police knocking on their door, so people naturally turn a blind eye.

But a closer analysis of the case reveals that these statements mask the deeper injustice of the crackdown on freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

First, the so-called “collusion with foreign forces” is extremely broad and vague. What exactly counts as collusion? Does speaking with foreign media qualify? The law does not clearly define the elements of “collusion,” the threshold of intent, or the degree of actual harm, allowing law enforcement and prosecution to rely heavily on after-the-fact interpretation. Ordinary public actions—such as giving interviews to foreign media, contacting overseas politicians or organizations, or calling international attention to Hong Kong’s situation—can now be reclassified as criminal acts. The core principle of the rule of law is predictability; citizens should clearly know what is legal and what is illegal. When legal boundaries are vague, people cannot adjust their behavior in advance to comply with the law, and lawful speech can be criminalized at any time, violating the fundamental judicial principle of nullum crimen sine lege (“no crime without law”).

Second, the case shows that under the National Security Law, the Chief Executive is allowed to freely select pro-Beijing judges and limit jury participation, clearly deviating from Hong Kong’s common law tradition. This blurs the line between the judiciary and the executive in politically sensitive cases. Even if a judge maintains professional integrity, the perception of independence is equally important. When politically sensitive cases are heard by executive-designated judges, defendants and the public naturally question whether the judiciary is free from political pressure. Once judicial credibility is undermined, rulings themselves are difficult to view as fully impartial, creating structural disadvantages for any defendant.

For instance, the judge stated during the trial that Lai “continued despite knowing the legal risks” and “intended to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party,” even declaring him the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy. The judgment described his use of the newspaper and personal influence as a coordinated propaganda campaign aimed at overthrowing the CCP. When the defense argued that Lai’s activities were within the scope of freedom of expression, the judge responded: “Opposing the government itself is not wrong, but if done in certain improper ways, it is wrong.” The judgment further characterized Lai’s actions as “a threat to Hong Kong and national security,” even claiming that he “sacrificed the interests of China and Hong Kong citizens.” Such politically charged language links speech directly to intent, raising doubts about judicial impartiality.

Additionally, the trial, spanning from 2023 to 2025, lasted 156 days—far beyond the original schedule. Prolonged legal procedures, combined with pre-trial detention or restrictions, caused ongoing psychological, physical, and financial pressure on Lai, particularly severe given his advanced age. His daughter, Claire Lai, stated in multiple media interviews that his health continued to deteriorate in prison, with significant weight loss and physical weakness. His son, Sebastian Lai, publicly appealed to international leaders to monitor his father’s health, fearing he might not have much time left. The prolonged trial itself constitutes an informal punishment, yet the authorities ignore the defendant’s health while asserting that the case is “lawful” and “protecting national security,” framing external criticism as foreign interference. Under this context, dissent is no longer considered part of public discourse but a potential threat, and the defendant’s human rights are irrelevant. Even before sentencing, Lai has suffered tremendous mental and physical trauma, while the prosecution, as an instrument of the state, bears no comparable burden. This asymmetry places the defense at a disadvantage and undermines the practical significance of the presumption of innocence.

Human Rights Betrayed by China

If the central government can crush a media figure simply for expressing opinions, citizens—especially the younger generation—might wish to fight back. But fantasy aside, reality must be acknowledged: Hong Kong will not allow any so-called “rebellion” to occur.

First, with the Sino-British Joint Declaration effectively undermined, the central government is no longer bound to follow the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Analysts have reasonably pointed out that the National Security Law bypasses Hong Kong’s normal legal processes, showing that the city’s once-vaunted rule of law is eroding. Once developments are circumvented in this way, the central government deems it necessary to monitor speech through ad hoc legal measures. From the arrest of activists like Miles Kwan to the prolonged trial of Jimmy Lai, dissatisfaction with policies—whether large or small—is no longer tolerated.

The ICCPR’s Article 19 protects freedom of expression, including political commentary, criticism of the government, press, publications, and international exchanges. Independent media, investigative reporting, and critical journalism are foundational to civil society’s freedom of speech. Article 14 guarantees fair trial rights, encompassing independent and impartial courts, fair bail procedures, public hearings, and the right to full defense. Yet the central government has violated both of these basic provisions. Under the National Security Law, the legal definitions of “seditious acts” and “collusion with foreign forces” are extremely vague, turning normal journalistic and public speech—comments, interviews, and international engagement—into potential criminal acts, producing a severe chilling effect. Such vagueness in law itself constitutes an infringement on freedom of expression.

Similarly, fair trial rights are compromised: judges in national security cases are designated by the Chief Executive, bail thresholds are exceptionally high, trials may occur without a jury, and Beijing retains ultimate interpretation authority. UN human rights experts widely regard political cases subject to executive influence as violating fundamental fair trial standards under international law.

Articles 21 and 22, which protect freedom of assembly and association—including peaceful protests, political organizations, and normal operation of civil groups—have also seen clear regression in Hong Kong. Numerous civil organizations have disbanded, and protests are treated as potential national security risks, with participants possibly facing retrospective criminal liability—a disproportionate and preventive restriction.

UN human rights experts, special rapporteurs, and treaty monitoring committees have repeatedly pointed out that the National Security Law’s broad definitions and implementation methods do not meet the necessity and proportionality standards required under international human rights law. The core issue is not whether the state has the right to maintain security, but whether national security is being used to completely override human rights. Rights are not gifts from the government; they are protections that cannot be arbitrarily revoked. When “national security” becomes an infinitely expandable and unquestionable rationale, rights once guaranteed under the ICCPR cease to exist legally and become political privileges revocable at any time.

How the Central Government Circumvents the ICCPR

China’s ability to bypass the ICCPR is not accidental; it stems from its historical, selective participation in the UN human rights framework. China signed the ICCPR in 1998 but has never ratified it, meaning it has never formally recognized its legal binding force domestically. Under international law, unratified treaties do not create full legal obligations for the state. Moreover, China’s “dualist” legal system requires that international treaties be transformed into domestic law to be enforceable in courts; without this, they cannot be invoked or applied in judicial proceedings.

This design allows China to diplomatically acknowledge human rights values and participate in UN discussions while retaining complete interpretive and enforcement sovereignty domestically. Even though Article 39 of the Basic Law states that the ICCPR continues to apply in Hong Kong, its practical effect is constrained by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s ultimate interpretive authority and the constitutional priority of national security. Within this structure, the common law culture and human rights protections inherited from Britain are not outright rejected but are institutionally neutralized. When the central government deems certain rights in conflict with national security, international covenants and local constitutional commitments can be reinterpreted, suspended, or effectively set aside, without immediate international legal consequences.

This institutional reality explains why Jimmy Lai gradually lost legal protection. British-established common law in Hong Kong was founded on limiting power, prioritizing individual rights over the state, and judicial checks on the executive. Article 39 of the Basic Law was intended to lock in this system and the ICCPR so that post-handover Hong Kong residents would retain fundamental freedoms. However, China’s consistent refusal to ratify the ICCPR and insistence that international human rights treaties cannot override national sovereignty allows it, through NPC interpretations and the National Security Law, to nullify the covenant’s substantive force.

Jimmy Lai’s case is a concrete manifestation of this systemic shift. Activities that would have been protected—journalistic work, political commentary, international engagement—are no longer treated as protected civil rights but are redefined as security risks subject to state intervention. With Britain’s rights-centered legal culture powerless to check central authority, and the ICCPR legally unenforceable in China, Lai and all Hong Kong citizens have effectively lost the last line of institutional protection. China does not simply “violate” international human rights law; it uses institutional design and hierarchical restructuring of power to transform Hong Kong citizens’ freedoms and legal protections from inalienable rights into political privileges revocable at will.

Crucially, many Hong Kong citizens fail to recognize that the National Security Law’s revocation of freedom of speech is legally possible precisely because China has never formally recognized the ICCPR. Signing in 1998 without ratification, the ICCPR has never been incorporated into Chinese law, meaning it cannot be directly enforced in courts. Many mistakenly believe that Article 39 of the Basic Law guarantees irrevocable protection, ignoring that its practical effect is constrained by NPC interpretations and the constitutional prioritization of national security. Thus, the National Security Law, deemed to safeguard the country’s fundamental interests, reclassifies freedom of expression not as a right protected by international law but as an exception fully limited for security reasons. This is the harsh reality that citizens still hoping for “protection under international law” have yet to fully grasp.

Lessons from the Jimmy Lai Case

Jimmy Lai’s case transcends individual criminal liability or a single judicial ruling; it symbolizes a systemic transformation in Hong Kong. In a city that was once legally bound by the ICCPR, a media founder has been convicted for his journalistic stance, political commentary, and international engagement. This demonstrates that the National Security Law has effectively reshaped the boundaries of speech and the judiciary. The case reflects not merely a ruling against one defendant but a governance logic that redefines normal civic behavior as a national security risk. Under this logic, press freedom, fair trials, and civil society are no longer institutional cornerstones but variables that can be sacrificed. Lai’s trial marks a clear transition from rights protection to political permission.

In this harsh reality, leaving Hong Kong is not shirking responsibility; it is a rational choice for risk management. When institutional resistance has been criminalized, preserving personal freedom, dignity, and future prospects is often more practical than futile confrontation.

For those choosing to stay in Hong Kong, the priority is not nostalgia or sentiment but a clear-eyed recognition that Hong Kong no longer operates under the system promised by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The city is fully integrated into China’s political and security governance framework. Within this structure, international support, foreign government statements, or UN mechanisms can offer only limited symbolic effect. This is not “foreign betrayal” but a reflection of international political realities. Residents staying must understand the choice they are making and bear the risks and restrictions of a contracting legal and civil environment.

For those considering emigration, illusions must be discarded. Certain institutional protections and freedoms once present in Hong Kong have effectively vanished and will not return simply because of personal desire. Those who ultimately stay must accept living in a society where speech, organization, and political participation are tightly constrained. For undecided individuals, the Jimmy Lai case is an unavoidable benchmark for careful consideration. It clearly defines the boundaries of systemic risk, and making the decision to leave at this stage is not yet too late.

For Hongkongers already abroad, the next challenge is not only to mourn what Hong Kong has lost but to rebuild life, identity, and future on new soil. Only then can leaving be more than retreat, instead becoming genuine rebirth and forward movement.

Post Views: 114

Features

Walking with the Solitary (1): The Lonely People

Published

5 days ago

January 29, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Raymond Chow

My New Challenge

Over the past few decades, I’ve written numerous books and articles on a wide variety of topics. However, last October, I decided to write a book entirely different from anything I had done before, titled Solitary but Not Isolated. I chose to publish it through crowdfunding. Readers interested in supporting this book can visit the following webpage to learn more and help make it a reality.

I attended a rooftop school in Hong Kong for primary education (a unique feature of Hong Kong in the 1960s: temporary classrooms built on top of apartment blocks in resettlement areas to accommodate children who had moved into the district). Resources were extremely limited. In sixth grade, the school principal gave me and seven other students the opportunity to post our writings on the bulletin board every two weeks for the whole school to read. This was my first experience of writing for a public audience.

In secondary school at Queen’s College, the school published the annual magazine The Yellow Dragon, the earliest and longest-running secondary school annual in Hong Kong. My writings were never published there, though my photos occasionally appeared in reports of school activities. At university, I volunteered as editor for a scholarly publication by the Science Society called Exploration, but after two or three years it was discontinued as no one wished to continue it.

During university, I studied mathematics, which required little essay writing—mostly problem-solving. After entering the field of education, I wrote numerous articles on Hong Kong education that were published in newspaper columns. Later, through curriculum development and teacher training in Hong Kong, I had the rare opportunity to write and publish mathematics textbooks spanning from Grade 1 to Form 7—something unprecedented in Hong Kong.

After moving to Australia, I served as editor of the Christian publication Living Monthly, and eventually founded Sameway magazine, which continues today. From the first issue, I wrote the opening column Words of Sameway, and over 21 years, I have written a total of 745 pieces—a record of my life.

Yet writing Solitary but Not Isolated is something I never anticipated doing since I first learned about autism decades ago. Publishing this book is closely connected to my work with Sameway. I can only say this is a new challenge given by God, a chance to take Sameway to a new stage.

Those Who Love Solitude

Solitary but Not Isolated tells the story of a person with autism. Based on her experiences, the Happy Hands Organization has developed a bilingual training program to help autistic individuals transition from school to the workplace. Launched this year, the program aims to support others in similar circumstances.

Most people with autism do not actively seek social interactions. When they do engage with strangers, they may appear difficult to connect with or communicate with, often leading to social neglect or isolation. For parents and family, this creates a lifelong burden. Even those who complete secondary or tertiary education, despite having professional knowledge, often cannot fully utilize their abilities at work because of incomplete social understanding and lack of basic communication skills. Consequently, they are frequently relegated to jobs that do not match their abilities or are assigned work requiring minimal interaction.

Western society’s understanding of autism began with the lifestyle demands of modern life, emphasizing early social engagement and learning in school. Families, having fewer children, often pay close attention to each child’s development and have higher expectations. Over the decades, understanding of autism has evolved—from viewing it as a mental illness to recognizing it as a deviation from typical personality development. Yet how society should assist their growth remains uncertain.

Decades ago, Western focus was on “treating” autism. Research into genetic, environmental, or physical causes has made limited progress. Interventions to change solitary behaviors are also limited—for example, providing speech therapy in childhood or occupational therapy for daily living skills offers only partial support. While societal acceptance and support for autistic individuals have greatly increased, parents feel that more is needed when their children enter adult life and the workforce.

In short, those inclined toward solitude still face a gap in having equal opportunities to thrive socially and professionally.

Understanding Society and the World

Many autistic individuals focus intensely on specific interests, with little experience in social relationships or current events. As adults, this often leads others to perceive them as unaware of society, or even “odd.” In workplaces, where collaboration is essential, they may face exclusion. Many end up in solitary work with minimal social interaction.

Among Chinese communities, first- or second-generation immigrants with autism often face compounded challenges due to limited knowledge of society. Parents, unfamiliar with Australian systems, cannot fully guide their children, and these high-ability individuals rarely integrate with society, limiting opportunities to demonstrate their potential.

In 2024, ABC launched The Assembly, a TV interview program where host Leigh Sales trained 15 autistic individuals to conduct interviews and produce the show. Participants significantly increased their understanding of society and the world, and their communication and social skills improved greatly.

Last year, Sameway had the opportunity to train a bilingual autistic new immigrant, successfully helping her become a magazine editor. Meanwhile, the Happy Hands Organization developed a workplace adaptation program for bilingual, high-functioning autistic individuals. Through four to six months of training, this program offers these often-overlooked individuals a chance to adapt and develop in Australia.

Thus, Sameway is not only an information platform supporting immigrant communities but also provides a development space and opportunities for those with special needs. Readers interested can contact our magazine or the Happy Hands Organization for details.

The Loneliness of Immigrants

Many immigrants arrive in Australia as adults. They often lack opportunities to understand society deeply and, due to work and life commitments, rarely have the time to engage fully with their new environment or develop close relationships with Australians. Consequently, most live within Chinese communities with similar backgrounds. Passive personalities or limited social skills often lead to intense feelings of loneliness.

Leaving their original home and social networks creates a sense of marginalization similar to that experienced by some autistic individuals. Many immigrants are willing to understand and engage with their new society but face personal limitations and a lack of proactive governmental support, leaving them unable to integrate fully into Australian life.

Chinese immigrants, in particular, may rely heavily on long-term Chinese social media and information platforms, further isolating them from the broader society. This social isolation significantly affects their participation and engagement in Australian life.

The goal of Sameway is to assist immigrants in integrating into Australia, fostering participation and engagement in society. We hope that with continued support, we can go further and achieve more.

Post Views: 18

Features

Walk With the Needy

Published

5 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

During the Christmas and New Year period, “Sameway” relocated though only to a spot less than 100 meters across from their original office. It was a tiring task, but we have finally settled in, allowing us to take a longer break during the holiday.

However, the world still undergoes significant changes. The President of Venezuela has been forcibly taken to New York for trial, while the new leader of Venezuela is willing to govern in line with U.S. interests. The longstanding alliance between Europe and the U.S. has become history in light of the U.S. attempt to purchase Greenland. The “Board of Peace” established by Trump requests that nations place the keeping of global peace in his personal hands, but attendees at the invitation include authoritarian dictators who have initiated wars multiple times. The generation that has grown up advocating for global integration, respect for human rights, and peaceful coexistence is now at a lost and confused. Will the world revert to a chaotic state governed by the law of the jungle, where strong countries dominate weaker ones, or can humanity choose to move forward in civilization by learning mistakes from history? We truly have no sure answer.

However, it is a time where the rise of Trump and the increasing power of global far-right political forces, coupled with the internet and social media replacing traditional media as the main source of information for many people. This has led to a society overwhelmed with information and challenges in distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is equally as frightening as an era where information is blocked, preventing access to necessary knowledge.

In Australia, as a multicultural country, immigrants face significant difficulties in obtaining lifestyle information through mainstream media. I believe that to build Australia as a harmonious and cohesive society, the government must invest substantial resources to assist immigrant communities to establish high-quality and credible multicultural media, and to accelerate the integration of first-generation immigrants into society, allowing them to become a driving force in social development.

In the past year, we have strengthened the current affairs information provided on our website. In the coming year, we will focus on enhancing our information services for the Chinese community through our broadcasts and magazine publications. I hope you can support us in achieving the goal of promoting the development of the Chinese immigrant community.

Starting this year, in line with the REJOICE’s initiative for bilingual new immigrants with autism, I will be writing a brand-new column to explore this topic with the community as they navigate With the NDIS program. I hope this innovative program by the REJOICE will receive your support for promotion and development within the community.

Additionally, after three years of training aimed at encouraging seniors to use social platforms to expand their community engagement, we will take a further step this year by launching training courses to assist seniors in using artificial intelligence. Our goal is to help Chinese seniors in Australia stay up-to-date and enjoy a higher quality of life brought about by AI.

In the new year, let us work together to build a stronger local Chinese community.

Post Views: 29

Features

Entering Trump 2.0’s New World

Published

5 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Since January 20, 2025, when Trump assumed the U.S. presidency once again, domestic issues in America have been frequent and complex, but the world cannot deny that his foreign policy has reshaped the global political landscape, ushering in a new era.

Over the past year, Trump has been extremely proactive in foreign affairs—from Greenland to Venezuela—demonstrating relentless ambition to expand U.S. influence abroad, even amid controversy and the risk of destabilizing other nations.

Prelude to 2025

Let’s briefly review Trump’s major foreign policy actions in 2025.

First, his involvement in the Gaza Strip cannot be overlooked. In February 2025, he publicly stated that the U.S. would play a more active, even leading, role in the region, supporting Israel’s security needs, including strengthening border defense and intelligence sharing. He also attempted to broker ceasefire talks in the U.S.’s name, coordinating Egypt, Qatar, and other countries as intermediaries. By October, Trump personally attended a multilateral meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh, pushing for a ceasefire agreement and reconstruction framework between Israel and Hamas.

While opinions on his approach were divided, with some critics arguing that direct intervention could heighten regional tensions, Trump nonetheless reaffirmed America’s influence and presence in Middle Eastern affairs.

Early in 2025, the Trump administration reviewed all foreign aid and temporarily halted military assistance to Ukraine, using it as leverage to push forward negotiations. By mid-March, following U.S.–Ukraine consultations, military and security support resumed, including air defense systems, drone technology, and financial assistance. The U.S. also advocated international sanctions against Russia, such as high-tech export restrictions and asset freezes. These actions demonstrated Trump’s support for strategic allies and further solidified U.S. influence in Europe.

While these events may seem unrelated, they set the stage for early 2026’s diplomatic developments.

The Venezuela Raid

Trump’s most notable action in January 2026 was the sudden capture (or abduction) of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

In fact, as early as December 1, 2025, Trump had called Maduro, demanding he step down. When Maduro refused, Trump publicly ramped up pressure in mid-to-late December, applying economic and military pressure—including blockades, intercepting suspicious ships, and bolstering military deployments—to isolate the Maduro government. He even hinted that further U.S. action might follow if Maduro continued to resist, signaling a preemptive warning.

The result: U.S. forces launched a large-scale operation codenamed “Absolute Determination”, storming Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife, and transporting them to New York for trial. The justification cited Maduro and his inner circle’s involvement in drug trafficking and terrorism, including conspiracies to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. At the same time, Maduro’s government had close ties with China and Russia, who provided military and economic support, posing a threat to U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The operation was also seen as a move to block rival powers from gaining leverage in Venezuela. More importantly, given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, Trump clearly aimed to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere and secure economic benefits. For many Americans, the raid showcased U.S. military might, boosting Trump’s prestige and approval. True to form, Trump paid little attention to criticism, focusing instead on praise, and was visibly self-satisfied.

International reactions were strong. China and Russia immediately condemned the U.S. action, calling it a severe violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. Iran and other nations with tense U.S. relations also criticized the operation as unilateralism under the guise of anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts, destabilizing the region.

European responses were mixed. Some EU countries long critical of Maduro still expressed reservations about the U.S. bypassing international authorization for direct military action, emphasizing that even dealing with authoritarian regimes should follow international mechanisms. This tension revealed the strain Trump’s style places on traditional allies.

In Latin America, reactions were split: anti-Maduro governments and Venezuelan opposition privately supported the move as a chance to break political deadlock, while others feared overt U.S. military intervention might revive Cold War-era “Monroe Doctrine” fears, worsening regional security.

Currently, former Vice President Rodríguez serves as interim president of Venezuela, cooperating with the U.S. while maintaining loyalty to the domestic ruling class, keeping the country relatively stable. For Trump, the goal of preventing other powers from gaining influence in the Americas and securing economic gains was achieved. Many Americans saw the raid as a demonstration of military strength, reinforcing Trump’s image as a decisive leader.

Trump’s Greenland Gambit

Since 2025, Trump has repeatedly brought Greenland into the spotlight, making it one of the most challenging and controversial topics of his second term.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is under Danish sovereignty but enjoys local autonomy. Its location between North America and Europe along the Arctic shipping route has made it strategically valuable. Previously overlooked due to extreme cold, climate change and melting ice have expanded Arctic navigation, increasing Greenland’s military and technological importance. The island also contains vast deposits of rare earth and critical minerals, essential for modern technology and defense systems.

Trump’s assertive approach clearly aimed to maximize U.S. influence over Greenland. In 2025, he publicly expressed interest in buying Greenland and urged negotiations to secure it, even hinting at military options. This escalated tensions with Denmark and Europe.

European reactions were unanimous: Greenlandic leaders stated the island is “not for sale”, and massive protests erupted in Greenland and Denmark. The UK prime minister warned Trump that high tariffs or aggression would be a grave mistake, while EU countries—including Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK—supported Danish sovereignty. Even European far-right parties, traditionally aligned with Trump, criticized his Greenland strategy as overt aggression, causing internal rifts.

At the 2026 Davos World Economic Forum, Trump and NATO Secretary-General Rutte reached a “preliminary framework” focusing on Arctic security cooperation rather than territorial control. Trump framed it as safeguarding U.S. military bases and economic interests, while Denmark retained final authority. However, Greenland’s government stressed it was not fully involved in negotiations, highlighting an ongoing tension. Analysts debate whether this is a tactical retreat or pragmatic compromise.

Even with the temporary easing of tensions, U.S.–Europe trust has been strained, showing how far-reaching Trump’s assertive diplomacy has become.

Iran Unrest and U.S. Pressure

From late December 2025, Iran experienced nationwide protests, initially triggered by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and skyrocketing living costs, evolving into broad dissatisfaction with the regime. The government’s harsh crackdown led to casualties and arrests on a scale unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The U.S., which maintains heavy sanctions against Iran citing terrorism sponsorship and nuclear/military threats, seized this moment to intervene. Trump publicly announced deploying a fleet—including aircraft carriers and missile destroyers—to the Persian Gulf to deter further escalation. He emphasized a preference for avoiding force but warned of potential military action if the regime continued violent repression.

Trump also communicated with Iranian protesters via public statements and social media, encouraging demonstrations and denouncing government violence. He canceled all official diplomatic talks until Tehran ceased the crackdown. While some protesters hoped for U.S. support, the absence of direct action led to frustration and feelings of abandonment.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders warned that any U.S. strike would be considered a full-scale war. Protests and anti-U.S. imagery reflected strong resistance. Intelligence reports indicating a temporary halt in state violence led Trump to consider pausing military actions while closely monitoring the situation, balancing threats with cautious observation.

Trump’s strategy combined military presence and public warnings to pressure Tehran, deter large-scale killings, and strengthen U.S. influence in the Middle East. Yet this high-risk approach also raised the possibility of miscalculations, where tensions could escalate unintentionally, making the U.S. a target for criticism and resistance.

The “Board of Peace”

Traditionally, the U.S. has been seen as the global big brother. But with China’s growing influence and global economic support programs, U.S. presidents often feel impatient with Beijing’s increasing UN sway. Trump, ambitious and assertive, sought to take matters further.

At the 2026 Davos Forum, he launched the “Board of Peace”, initially proposed to address Gaza peace but now expanded to serve as a broader global conflict mediation mechanism. The initiative leverages U.S. influence to create an alternative diplomatic platform and invites multiple countries to participate.

However, critics question whether it is more for show than genuine peacekeeping. The EU’s concern lies less with the stated goals and more with the lack of clarity: the legal status, decision-making process, funding, and international law accountability remain unspecified. Unlike multilateral bodies like the UN or OSCE, this U.S.-backed, president-driven mechanism risks becoming a coercive tool rather than a genuine mediator.

The EU fears it could undermine Europe’s long-standing role in Middle East diplomacy, forcing it from rule-maker to follower. China was excluded, reflecting Trump’s view of Beijing as a competitor, not a partner. The Board aims to present participation as a political statement, effectively creating a U.S.-led bloc in global conflict mediation.

For Australia, the Board is a hot potato. Prime Minister Albanese received an invitation but has not confirmed participation. Several NATO and EU countries have declined, while Canada was disinvited over disagreements on China policy. Thirty-plus leaders who accepted include war actors like Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu. How they could effectively promote peace remains questionable, and handling the invitation diplomatically will test Albanese’s political skill.

Trump’s Diplomatic Logic

Across Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, and the Board of Peace, Trump’s strategy is consistent: proactive engagement, pressure, disruption of norms, and forcing allies and adversaries to recalculate. He eschews slow multilateral negotiations in favor of military, economic, and media leverage, coupled with highly personalized decision-making, shifting power quickly at the negotiating table.

To Trump, diplomacy is a continuous game of strategy, not merely maintaining order. He pushes situations to the edge, then retreats strategically to gain advantage. While controversial and eroding trust among allies, it successfully recenters U.S. influence.

Crucially, Trump applies pressure not only to adversaries but to allies, forcing them to demonstrate loyalty or strategic value. This increases U.S. bargaining leverage but consumes trust capital, making international relations more transactional and short-term, and setting the stage for future friction.

Costs and Risks of Assertive Diplomacy

Reliance on pressure and uncertainty may yield short-term results but risks long-term instability. Highly personalized, low-institutional approaches erode trust in rules, procedures, and multilateral cooperation. Misjudgments are more likely in opaque, high-stakes situations. Allies and adversaries may misread threats, escalating conflict even without provocation.

Trump is reshaping U.S. diplomacy from guardian of order to rewriter of order, providing tactical flexibility but weakening institutional credibility. Whether the U.S. can balance assertive pressure with sustained trust will determine its long-term global leadership.

Ultimately, Trump’s strategy may open new strategic space for the U.S. or provoke deeper backlash and confrontation. One thing is certain: the international stage in 2026 is no longer the old world, and Trump is the key variable driving this structural transformation.