U.S. lawmakers urge Trump to press China’s president on Jimmy Lai case
Over 100 U.S. lawmakers wrote to President Trump urging him to address Jimmy Lai's 20‑year prison sentence during his upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Lai, founder of the pro‑democracy tabloid Apple Daily, was convicted on national security charges in February 2026, a verdict critics say was politically motivated. The bipartisan letter, signed by Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. Rick Scott, calls for Lai’s humanitarian release and requests Trump to advocate for him again. Trump previously discussed Lai’s case with Xi in October 2025, but lawmakers want renewed pressure ahead of the May 14‑15 trip.
5 months ago
U.S. lawmakers have sent a bipartisan letter to former President Donald Trump, urging him to raise the imprisonment of Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai with Chinese President Xi Jinping during Trump’s upcoming Beijing visit, citing Lai’s deteriorating health and Catholic faith as humanitarian grounds for his release 1 2.
More than 100 members of Congress, led by Rep. Chris Smith (R‑NJ) and Sen. Rick Scott (R‑FL), signed the May 8 letter.
The lawmakers ask Trump to use his “ability to persuade” Xi Jinping to grant Lai humanitarian parole.
They emphasize that the request reflects both legislative and executive concern for Lai’s situation 1 2.
Lai, founder of the pro‑democracy Apple Daily, was sentenced to 20 years on Feb 9 2026 for alleged national‑security offenses—a verdict his supporters call a politically motivated show trial.
He is 78 years old, has been detained for five years (most in solitary confinement), and suffers from type 2 diabetes and other serious ailments.
Lawmakers argue that continued incarceration threatens his life and that release would allow him to leave Hong Kong and withdraw from public life 1 2.
The letter frames Lai’s case as a humanitarian issue, noting his devout Catholicism and the risk of permanent harm from isolation and inadequate prison conditions.
Lawmakers contend that granting parole would reunite his family and avoid a “blight” on the Chinese Communist Party’s international image 1 2.
Trump previously discussed Lai with Xi in October 2025.
His upcoming May 14‑15 summit in Beijing provides an opportunity to revisit the matter, according to the congressional delegation 1 2.
If successful, Lai’s release could signal U.S. influence on China’s handling of political and religious prisoners.
Conversely, a refusal may reinforce perceptions of repression in Hong Kong and undermine U.S. advocacy for religious freedom 1 2.
Catholic doctrine demands justice for politically persecuted journalists
Catholic doctrine supports the substance of the claim—that unjust persecution of journalists is morally wrong and demands justice and protection, because journalism serves the public good by informing the public and seeking truth, and because political authority has a duty to safeguard “true and just freedom of information.”
At the same time, Catholic teaching clarifies that this defense of justice is not a license for violence or for unconditional advocacy of every political narrative. The Church requires both (1) protection of rights and (2) moral responsibility in the exercise of the press.
The Church teaches that justice is a value covering relationships in every field of social life, including the political and cultural spheres, and that everyone—including institutions and public authorities—has a responsibility for realizing it.
In the context of media, the Church explicitly connects justice to the moral and legal responsibility of protecting the freedom of information: public authority “has… the duty of protecting and safeguarding true and just freedom of information.”
So if journalists are “persecuted” because they seek to inform the public (or because their reporting conflicts with power), the moral issue is not first of all partisan—it is whether there is violation of fundamental rights and grave injustice against persons serving truth in the public sphere.
The Catechism states that journalists have obligations grounded in charity and truth: by their profession they are bound “to serve the truth,” they must respect “the nature of the facts,” and they must not “stoop to defamation.”
This matters for your claim in two ways:
Pope Paul VI frames this moral duty in a way that directly touches the “persecution” question: those influencing public opinion must seek “nothing but the truth, the good and the beautiful for the benefit of the common good.”
Catholic teaching is unusually direct about harm to news professionals. Communio et Progressio explains that the Church “utterly condemns the use of violence against newsmen” and against those involved in conveying information, precisely because these persons vindicate and practice “the right of finding out what is happening and of passing on this information to others.”
This addresses a key aspect of “political persecution”: if persecution takes the form of violence, threats, imprisonment, or coercion designed to silence information, it contradicts the Church’s moral condemnation of violence and its defense of the right to know and inform.
In a related address, John Paul II reiterates the same teaching, again emphasizing that the Church condemns violence against newsmen as they exercise the right to discover and share what is happening.
“Justice” in Catholic moral reasoning typically means restoring what is due—human dignity, rights, and lawful order—not retaliatory violence.
A text from the Enchiridion excerpted from Pius XI’s 1937 address (“Firmissimam constantiam”) distinguishes between condemning unjust insurrection/violence versus acknowledging that when public power is used “against justice and truth” to destroy authority’s foundations, it is not clear citizens are to be condemned when defending themselves by licit and appropriate means.
But Catholic moral teaching is also careful: it sets conditions for resistance to oppression using armed force. The Catechism says “armed resistance to oppression” is not legitimate unless specific conditions are met (grave, prolonged violations of fundamental rights; exhaustion of other remedies; no worse disorders expected; hope of success; no better solution foreseeable).
Applied to persecuted journalists, this implies:
The Enchiridion excerpt also emphasizes that “vindications” should be licit actions (not evils), appropriate and proportionate, and must not produce “greater evils… to the community and justice” than the abuses being reformed.
A common counterpoint is: “Does the Church demand justice for persecuted journalists in a partisan way?” Catholic teaching resists that framing.
Pope Paul VI teaches that the Church’s concern for justice and charity is expressed through preaching and moral teaching, and that it fosters political responsibility and citizens’ freedom; it is legitimate for the Church to teach social doctrine and pass moral judgments when needed regarding matters affecting basic personal rights.
So the Church’s stance is moral and rights-based, not party-based.
Additionally, Catholic teaching on lay responsibility highlights the vocation of Catholics in public life: the laity are “primarily responsible for promoting justice for those in the courts and in prison,” and must be attentive to justice-system policies that infringe dignity “in the name of efficiency.”
While this source does not mention journalists explicitly, it directly supports the general duty: advocate for justice when people are deprived of rights or treated unjustly by public powers.
Yes, Catholic doctrine supports the claim, in this sense:
But Catholic doctrine does not mean “demanding justice” equals adopting any given political position, nor does it automatically endorse any form of resistance. The Church’s moral standard is truth, human dignity, rights, and the common good, carried out through licit means.