Abhishek G BhayaTwo American nationals—a US government employee and a senior banker—have been barred from leaving China in recent weeks, marking a sharp escalation in the use of Beijing’s “exit bans” even as the two sides prepare to start a fresh round of trade talks in Sweden on Monday.
The moves come amid lingering geopolitical rivalry between the US and China and have prompted corporate travel restrictions and renewed warnings about the risks faced by American citizens operating in China.
The bans coincided with revelations that a US-based engineer with dual Chinese and American citizenship pleaded guilty to stealing sensitive military technologies for China, further fueling speculation over potential tit-for-tat measures.
While some observers suggest the cases may be linked, analysts cautioned against drawing premature conclusions.
“From China’s perspective, there is no shift in policy, but rather a consistent application of legal standards,” Einar Tangen, senior fellow at the Beijing-based Taihe Institute, told TRT World. He said the exit bans are viewed in Beijing as “individual judicial matters.”
Rorry Daniels, Managing Director at Asia Society Policy Institute, described the trend as part of a “disturbing climate of mutual mistrust”. At the same time, James Zimmerman, a lawyer in Beijing and former chairman of American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China), noted that the legal tool has existed since the 1980s.
Two Americans blocked from leaving China
The US State Department confirmed on July 22 that a US Patent and Trademark Office employee has been barred from leaving China for over three months. The man, also a US Army veteran, reportedly failed to declare his government affiliation on a visa application.
According to The New York Times, the employee travelled to Chengdu, the capital city of China’s southwestern Sichuan province, in April to visit family but was intercepted by Ministry of State Security (MSS) officers. The report stated that the MSS officers seized his passport, credit card, and personal devices and interrogated him about his military service maintaining Black Hawk helicopters. Although his passport was later returned, he has been barred from leaving.
Shortly before, Mao Chenyue, a Shanghai-born US citizen and Wells Fargo managing director, was placed under an exit ban while on a business trip to China. She has been unable to return to the US, and Wells Fargo has since suspended all employee travel to China.
China’s Foreign Ministry confirmed Mao’s travel restriction, saying it was part of a “criminal investigation,” but declined to provide details. “Everyone in China, whether Chinese or foreign, must abide by Chinese laws,” said spokesperson Guo Jiakun.
Legal tool or political leverage?
Chinese authorities argue that exit bans are lawful tools used to support investigations, prevent flight risks, and uphold national security.
“Exit bans are commonly used in investigations to prevent witnesses or suspects viewed as flight risks from exiting mainland China,” Zimmerman told TRT World.
“Most of the time, there is a legitimate legal basis, but there are indeed instances of misuse, including for political reasons,” he noted.
Tangen, on the other hand, asserted that “China upholds the rule of law and handles entry and exit affairs in accordance with legal procedures,” adding that similar practices exist in the US, EU, and UK.
“Chinese nationals have faced prosecution abroad for offences ranging from money laundering to cyber espionage. Legal accountability crosses borders.”
Zimmerman acknowledged the legal framework but pointed to concerns over a lack of transparency and “the absence of a workable bail system” that makes lifting an exit ban difficult.
He also highlighted the rising use of exit bans by China’s Central Commission on Disciplinary Inspection (CCDI) in corruption probes, including those involving foreign-linked firms or executives with past connections to Chinese government officials or state-owned enterprises.
Daniels, meanwhile, emphasised the ambiguity around how individuals become targets. “Americans doing business in China are now being caught in the crossfire and subject to China’s extremely opaque legal system,” she warned. “Without real due process, there is always an open question that detentions of Americans in China are state-directed to build leverage with the US government.”
“It’s difficult to build a good risk mitigation strategy because it’s not clear how one becomes a target for an exit ban,” she said. “More transparency would help prevent a chilling effect on business travel.”
Espionage case fuels speculation
The exit bans came just as Chinese-American engineer Chenguang Gong pleaded guilty in California to stealing over 3,600 sensitive files intended for military use, according to a Justice Department statement released on July 21.
US authorities said Gong had ties to Chinese “talent programs” and proposed developing military-grade infrared and radar technology for Beijing.
While some observers speculate a retaliatory link between Gong’s case and China’s recent imposition of exit bans on two Americans, both Tangen and Zimmerman cautioned against drawing conclusions.
“Beijing would likely reject any suggestion that these cases are linked,” said Tangen.
However, Tangen also cited past cases such as that of Canada’s ‘Two Michaels’—Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig—who were arrested in China on espionage charges in 2018 and later released in 2021, following Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou freed by Canada in what was dubbed as “hostage diplomacy.”
“The blanket denials from the Canadian government eventually turned out to be false. It later emerged one was an asset and the other his handler,” he said.
“To put things in perspective,” he added, “the US, via CIA, and British security services MI5 and MI6 have openly advertised for Mandarin-speaking spies over the internet. If there is a question of spying, Beijing will react as Washington or any other jurisdiction.”
Corporate fallout: Travel warnings and device restrictions
The latest exit bans have sent shockwaves through the US corporate sector. On July 22, American multinational investment firm BlackRock issued internal guidelines banning staff from using company laptops and remote networks while in China, urging the use of burner phones.
Later, the firm reportedly suspended all trips to China.
Wells Fargo and other major US companies have followed suit.
Zimmerman said tech restrictions have existed for years to protect commercial secrets, but “exit bans on executives are a red line. “Foreign business recognises that its executives must abide by local laws and regulations but also don’t want to get caught up in a hostage diplomacy situation,” he noted.
“At the same time, the Chinese government understands detaining executives is a red line and is cautious about ensuring that any exit bans imposed on executives have a legal basis,” added Zimmerman.
Tangen stressed that China is trying to avoid alienating investors. “Beijing is committed to legal due process,” he said, citing visa-free access for 47 countries, improved IP protections, and the 2025 Action Plan to stabilise foreign investment.
Impact on Trump’s trade war
The recent exit bans come against the backdrop of US President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade war with China, prompting questions about their possible impact on future diplomatic and trade negotiations as the two sides meet in Sweden for a fresh round of trade talks on Monday.
The current 90-day truce between the US and China—which saw the two countries temporarily lowering tariffs on each other—is set to end on August 12.
While the timing—coinciding with Trump’s push for a China visit and ahead of the tariffs deadline—has raised eyebrows, “any political linkage would be speculative,” cautioned Tangen.
Zimmerman, while cautious about linking the exit bans to trade war, however, pointed out that “the Chinese side has its own leverage points against Trump’s tariffs, including outbound restrictions on rare earth metals.”
Still, Daniels noted that “the Trump administration has a very high regard for the safety of US citizens, including those travelling abroad, and would certainly raise these cases as concerns.”
