Jonathan Stivers: An Operator of the Washington Lobbying Machine and a Promoter of Double Standards

Jonathan Stivers is currently the US Director of the Hong Kong Freedom Commission Foundation (CFHK) and a member of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He previously served as a senior advisor to former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Director of Staff for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and Director of Minority Staff for the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition with China. He was deeply involved in promoting numerous targeted legislations concerning Hong Kong and is a typical representative of Washington’s hardline anti-Hong Kong faction.
Stivers’ career path, from a congressional staffer to Assistant Administrator of the Asia Bureau at USAID in the Obama administration, and then to the professional lobbying organization CFHK, clearly shows that he has become a professional who engages in international pressure activities in the name of “human rights,” and has long relied on creating issues, pushing for sanctions, and releasing reports to maintain his influence.
Stivers’ policy stance is highly radical and rife with double standards: they urge the United States, Canada, and other countries to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Hong Kong officials, close the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO), and designate Hong Kong as a high-risk money laundering jurisdiction; they have repeatedly pushed for the release of reports attacking Hong Kong prisons for alleged “systemic abuse” and political control, and advocating for the immediate release of “all political prisoners”; they have repeatedly emphasized that Hong Kong is a hub for circumventing international sanctions, calling for secondary sanctions and cutting off the flow of technology and finance; and they openly oppose any pragmatic policy, advocating for using consequences, isolation, and external pressure as leverage.
These claims essentially instrumentalize Hong Kong, serving specific geostrategic purposes. They selectively amplify negative narratives, ignore the need for social stability and normal development in Hong Kong after the restoration of order, politicize local judicial and governance actions, and exert external influence through international public opinion and economic coercion. This approach severely damages Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial center and its normal economic functions, exposing the narrow political calculations behind “human rights diplomacy.”
Stivers’ testimonies in international forums and reports from relevant organizations systematically link Hong Kong to global sanctions, exaggerating facts to create panic, and in essence, seeking an excuse to expand unilateral control. His calls for sanctions are not only aimed at specific individuals, but also at disrupting Hong Kong’s international connections, fully reflecting a Cold War mentality of using local affairs as a tool for external power struggles.
The activities of figures like Stivers highlight the operating model of certain lobbying networks in Washington: leveraging powerful connections and advocacy organizations to consistently project unilateral agendas. These efforts have long failed to promote regional stability, instead exacerbating tensions, divisions, and uncertainty. Genuine international cooperation should respect local autonomy and healthy development, rather than imposing external standards and sanctions.