China’s Pursuit of Taiwanese Lawmaker Signals a Growing Threat to U.S. Security and Democratic Norms
The Chinese government’s decision to investigate Taiwanese lawmaker Puma Shen for “secession” may appear at first glance to be a cross-Strait issue. In reality, it is a profound warning for the United States and other democracies about Beijing’s expanding campaign to project police power beyond its borders, criminalize political dissent overseas, and reshape the global order in ways hostile to American interests. The U.S. State Department’s expression of “deep concern” following China’s announcement is more than a diplomatic note; it is a reflection of a growing awareness in Washington that the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are no longer confined to military maneuvers or economic coercion. They increasingly extend into the realm of extraterritorial law enforcement, digital intimidation, political interference, and the erosion of norms that anchor peace in the Indo-Pacific.
The case centers on Puma Shen, a Taiwanese lawmaker and founder of Kuma Academy, a civil defense initiative that trains civilians to prepare for a potential invasion by China. He has long been a target of Beijing’s propaganda machine for his research on Chinese disinformation operations and his efforts to build societal resilience in Taiwan. But China’s announcement that Shen is now “wanted” for so-called “secession-related crimes” marks a dangerous escalation. This is not simply a political message to Taiwan; it is a declaration that China believes it has the authority to prosecute democratically elected officials outside its jurisdiction and that it can pressure foreign governments to enforce that claim.
Beijing’s tactics reflect a deepening campaign to criminalize dissent beyond its borders. This is part of a broader trend of extraterritorial repression seen in China’s attempts to intimidate Hong Kong activists abroad, its Operation Fox Hunt actions targeting critics overseas, and its establishment of clandestine “police stations” in foreign countries to monitor diaspora communities. These tactics are not theoretical. They represent a new frontier for China’s political warfare, and they hold direct implications for U.S. domestic security and global leadership. Every time Beijing extends its reach into foreign jurisdictions without consequence, it gains confidence to test the limits further.
In Shen’s case, China’s push to pursue him through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) or through mutual legal assistance agreements with foreign governments is especially alarming. Interpol has long been misused by authoritarian governments to target political dissidents, business rivals, and activists. China’s consideration of this mechanism shows its willingness to exploit international systems for political gain. For Americans, this signals that U.S. citizens, lawmakers, journalists, researchers, and corporate leaders who criticize China’s geopolitical strategies could one day find themselves the targets of similar accusations if Beijing feels empowered.
The U.S. response so far has been clear but measured. The State Department emphasized that China’s actions “threaten free speech and erode norms that have underpinned the cross-Strait status quo for decades.” Washington urged Beijing to engage in peaceful dialogue rather than legal intimidation. Significantly, the statement framed China’s actions not only as a threat to Taiwan but as a destabilizing force that undermines the very framework of communication and restraint that has kept the Taiwan Strait from erupting into conflict. For the United States, which maintains security commitments and strategic interests across the region, such erosion directly threatens American stability and national security.
China’s expanding legal aggression also highlights an often under-recognized dimension of the growing U.S.–China rivalry: the CCP’s belief that it can shape global norms in its favor through pressure, fear, and legal overreach. It is not enough for Beijing to assert that Taiwan is part of China; it also seeks to force the international community to treat Taiwanese political expression as a criminal act. If left unchallenged, this narrative could slowly displace the principles of democracy and self-determination that the United States has long defended. For Americans, this raises fundamental questions about the future rules of the international system and whether Beijing’s model—where authoritarian claims outweigh democratic legitimacy—will become normalized.
Another element of concern is how China’s legal campaign against Shen fits into its broader strategy of gray-zone pressure. Beijing has increasingly used ambiguous or non-military tactics to destabilize Taiwan and challenge U.S. influence without crossing the threshold of open conflict. These tactics include disinformation operations, cyber intrusions, economic coercion, maritime harassment, and political intimidation. Targeting a Taiwanese legislator for “secession” falls directly within this playbook. It sends a chilling message to civil society organizations and democratic actors not only in Taiwan but across the Indo-Pacific region. It signals that any form of resistance to Chinese political objectives could be criminalized under vaguely defined national security laws.
For the United States, the implications extend well beyond Taiwan. If China succeeds in normalizing the idea that it can prosecute foreign nationals for political positions, it will set a dangerous precedent for U.S. citizens, researchers, and companies operating globally. China has already demonstrated a willingness to detain foreign nationals as bargaining tools or political leverage. Its sweeping national security laws allow for near-limitless interpretations of “subversion” or “secession.” As Beijing becomes more assertive, it is easy to imagine scenarios where Americans who speak out on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, cybersecurity, human rights, or military expansion find themselves targeted by similar forms of legal harassment.
Washington cannot afford to ignore these trends. Protecting American interests requires recognizing that China’s campaign to reshape global norms is not limited to military posturing but increasingly involves influencing legal frameworks, digital governance, law enforcement cooperation, and cross-border policing. These efforts aim to weaken the protections provided by democratic systems and expand China’s ability to punish critics internationally. The Biden and Trump administrations alike have warned of China’s long-term ambitions, but cases like Shen’s illustrate the urgency of adopting comprehensive strategies to counter extraterritorial authoritarianism.
At the same time, the United States must stand firm in its commitment to democratic partners like Taiwan. Beijing’s targeting of Shen is not only a legal intimidation tactic but a direct assault on Taiwan’s democratic institutions. By trying to brand a sitting Taiwanese lawmaker as a criminal, China is attempting to delegitimize Taiwan’s elected government and dismantle the political identity of its 23 million people. For the United States, which values democratic resilience and rule of law, supporting Taiwan in resisting such pressure is essential.
The broader danger for Americans lies in the potential normalization of authoritarian legal norms in the global system. If China’s actions go unchallenged internationally, it will embolden Beijing to expand its extraterritorial claims further. This could erode the international institutions that protect Americans abroad, undermine the democratic alliances that secure U.S. interests, and weaken the global order that has enabled America’s security and prosperity for decades.
China’s pursuit of Puma Shen is not a marginal cross-Strait issue. It is a direct illustration of Beijing’s growing ambition to impose its will beyond its borders, shape the global legal environment, and challenge the United States by redefining the rights and freedoms of people worldwide. As tensions continue to rise, Americans must remain vigilant. The threat posed by China is not abstract. It is evolving, deliberate, and increasingly global—and it demands both awareness and resolve from the United States.
