China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress came into force on 1 July, codifying measures that require schools and government institutions to use Mandarin as the primary language, oblige cultural bodies to promote a unified national history, and direct local authorities to pursue ethnic integration through housing policy. The law also contains an extraterritorial provision, Article 63, which states that organisations and individuals outside China who undermine ethnic unity or create ethnic division can be held legally liable under Chinese law. China officially recognises 56 ethnic groups, with the Han majority accounting for more than 90 per cent of the population.

Chinese judicial officials have defended the legislation as targeting illegal acts that incite separatism, with Vice‑Minister of Justice Hu Weilie describing the overseas enforcement clause as legitimate and necessary. Beijing maintains that the law protects the rights and interests of all ethnic groups and frames it as a tool for national rejuvenation and shared destiny, pointing to constitutional provisions that forbid acts undermining ethnic unity. Legal analysts in China note that Article 63 does not create new offences but channels liability back to existing criminal statutes, including those covering secession and incitement to secession, and that the law’s preamble emphasises unity rather than coercion.

The law has drawn sharp criticism from multiple international actors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called for its repeal, warning it risks deepening restrictions on freedoms of language, education, religion, culture, expression and assembly. Amnesty International said the legislation would require political and ideological alignment with the Chinese Communist Party and institutionalise policies of forced assimilation, pushing minorities to adopt a Han Chinese‑dominated national identity. In Washington, nine US senators, including the top members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voiced opposition, expressing deep concern over language demanding ideological compliance with the party and the extension of legal liability to people outside China. Uyghur and Tibetan advocates have urged countries to push for the law to be struck down, arguing it aims to erase minority communities.

Taiwan’s government issued a strong condemnation, with President William Lai outlining countermeasures including early warning mechanisms, media literacy programmes, and international cooperation to counter what he termed cross‑border repression. Taiwanese national security officials identified eight groups at risk, including overseas minorities, political dissidents, foreign lawmakers, journalists, and Taiwanese travellers, warning that the law’s deliberately vague definitions of prohibited conduct could be used to fabricate charges and compel self‑censorship. The legislation is now in force, and while Beijing has rejected calls for repeal, Taiwan has pledged to deepen engagement with like‑minded partners to push back against what it describes as an expansion of authoritarian pressure.