China’s New Exit and Entry Rules Take Effect, Detailing Exit-Ban Powers on Security and Technology
Updated: 55m
Beijing, 15 September 2026
New Chinese exit and entry regulations took effect on Tuesday, placing three categories of Chinese citizens within an expressly stated administrative framework for exit bans. They include people found to have engaged abroad in unlawful or criminal conduct that harms national security or interests, and those who violate export-control or technology import and export rules in a manner that may endanger national industrial or technological security.
The regulations also establish that a deciding authority should ordinarily give the person written notice of the facts, reasons, legal basis and avenues of redress. Notice may be withheld, however, when giving it could affect national security or a criminal investigation. Ministry of Justice database: State Council Decree No. 841; Reuters, 15 September; Associated Press, 15 September
The measure does not create China’s exit-ban system from nothing. Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, in force since 2013, already prevents departure by people serving criminal sentences, criminal suspects and defendants, people involved in unresolved civil cases when a court so decides, and people whom competent State Council departments consider capable of endangering national security or interests, amongst other categories. The 19-article regulation effective on Tuesday uses authority under that law to set out further circumstances, decision-makers, time limits and notification procedures. National Immigration Administration: Exit and Entry Administration Law; Chinese government’s English summary
At the time of writing, no public information showed that any individual had been newly subjected to an exit ban under the regulation on its first day, and the government had published no estimate of the number likely to be affected. What can presently be established is a change in legal authority and procedure. Claims that all ordinary citizens will be restricted, or that an entire occupational group has already been barred from leaving, would go beyond the evidence.
Three categories of Chinese citizens
The State Council adopted the Regulation on Exit and Entry Administration on 29 June, promulgated it through Decree No. 841 on 22 July and brought it into force on 15 September. Article 4 establishes three categories. Ministry of Justice database
First, where a Chinese citizen has received administrative detention for fraudulently obtaining exit or entry documents or illegally crossing a border, immigration authorities may prohibit departure for between six months and three years after the penalty has been completed, having regard to the violation and the need to prevent further offending.
Secondly, a Chinese citizen who engages abroad in unlawful or criminal activities that harm national security or interests may be prohibited from leaving again for between six months and three years after returning. The decision may be taken by a competent State Council department or, following verification by a Chinese diplomatic mission or another relevant body, by the provincial government where the person resides in China. Article 4 of the regulation
Thirdly, competent State Council bodies, including those responsible for commerce, may stop a Chinese citizen leaving when that person violates export-control or technology import and export rules and may thereby endanger national industrial or technological security. Unlike the first two categories, the text states no fixed duration for this form of restriction and does not itself require a prior criminal conviction. DLA Piper likewise noted the absence of a fixed limit for the technology and export-control category and advised multinational businesses to assess the compliance implications when arranging employee travel. Article 4 of the regulation; DLA Piper analysis
The regulation does not define the degree of conduct required to establish that industrial or technological security ‘may’ be endangered. Nor does it list uniform factors for setting the duration of a restriction. The practical limits of the power will depend upon any implementing rules, the treatment of inadvertent or disputed technology transfers, and the availability of administrative reconsideration or litigation capable of testing a decision.
Notice rule includes a national-security exception
Article 6 requires the authority making an exit-ban decision to notify immigration officials promptly and, in principle, to tell the person in writing the facts, reasons, legal basis and available remedies. Advance notice may be withheld where it could affect national security or the investigation of a criminal case. When immigration officials execute the decision at the border, they must inform the person in accordance with the deciding authority’s instructions. Article 6 of the regulation
The provision expressly offers written notice and information about redress, while leaving room for a traveller to learn of a restriction only upon reaching an airport or land crossing. The Associated Press quoted Georgetown University law professor Mark Jia as warning that broad concepts such as national interests and technology security could leave people subject to bans without the basic procedural protections promised in the text. That is an expert assessment of a potential enforcement risk, not a judicial finding that the regulation is unlawful. Associated Press
Article 3 also requires the stated purpose of an application to exit, enter, stay or reside to be truthful and lawful. Immigration and visa authorities may ask applicants for documents, other materials and electronic data to verify identity and purpose. False material or statements may result in refusal of documents, departure or entry. The permissible scope of such requests, their connection to the application and the handling of retained data will require scrutiny as enforcement develops. Article 3 of the regulation
Government cites cross-border crime and technology protection
The Chinese government presents the regulation as a means of standardising administration, protecting the lawful rights of travellers and safeguarding sovereignty, security and development interests. In a joint explanation issued in July, officials from the justice and public security ministries and the National Immigration Administration cited people being deceived or using fabricated reasons to travel abroad for cross-border gambling or telecommunications fraud, as well as unauthorised overseas technology transfers that threaten industrial and technological security.
The regulation also requires official overseas risk warnings and permits immigration officials, where necessary, to dissuade citizens from travelling to places at the highest risk level or experiencing a surge in incidents that seriously endanger personal safety. Joint official questions and answers; Chinese government’s English summary
The three agencies said that written reasons, information about remedies, and duties to protect commercial secrets, privacy and personal information were safeguards for those affected. The Associated Press reported that China’s cyberspace authority sought last week to answer online concern, saying that the regulation targeted people involved in unlawful cross-border activities rather than ordinary citizens travelling abroad for legitimate purposes. Joint official questions and answers; Associated Press
The measure also creates a registration system for exit and entry intermediaries. It allows a foreign national who provides false material or statements when applying for a Chinese visa abroad or seeking entry at a port to be barred for one to five years. Foreigners placed on a countermeasures list, the Unreliable Entity List, the Malicious Entity List or other restrictive measures may also be refused documents or entry. These provisions show that the package governs citizens’ departure, foreigners’ entry and the intermediary industry; it is not solely an exit-ban instrument. Articles 5–10 of the regulation
Rights concerns focus on clarity, necessity and redress
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises everyone’s right to leave any country, including their own. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights similarly recognises freedom to leave, and permits only restrictions that are provided by law, necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others, and consistent with the covenant’s other rights. United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; OHCHR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
National security and the prevention of unlawful technology transfers can therefore constitute legitimate objectives for travel restrictions. The objective alone does not establish that every individual ban will be necessary and proportionate. That assessment also requires clarity about the underlying facts, timely reasons, a scope and duration no greater than the risk requires, independent and effective review, and prompt cancellation once the grounds no longer exist.
Madrid-based rights group Safeguard Defenders published an investigation on 15 September saying that the term ‘exit ban’ appeared in 89 judgments in China’s Supreme People’s Court database in 2016, 6,603 in 2018 and 188,760 in 2025. It calculated that the term appeared in approximately 0.23 per cent of published civil decisions in 2019 and 7.3 per cent in 2025. The organisation argues that the figures demonstrate rapid expansion in the use of the measure. Safeguard Defenders investigation
Those figures require careful interpretation. They count published documents containing the search term, not distinct bans or affected people. One individual or case may appear in several documents, while one judgment may involve several people. The organisation also acknowledged that the judgment database has become substantially less complete, and that administrative or informal restrictions, confiscated passports and unpublished national-security matters are not captured. Courts in many jurisdictions also restrict travel during pending criminal or civil proceedings. The data support the narrower conclusion that exit bans appear with increasing frequency amongst published Chinese judgments; they cannot establish a precise nationwide total. Safeguard Defenders’ methodology and limitations
Taiwan warns of risk; Beijing rejects wider alarm
Shen Yu-chung, a deputy minister of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, said on 14 September that the regulation gave a legal form to border-control practices he regarded as previously lacking a legal basis and increased enforcement discretion. He drew particular attention to the export-control and technology provisions for Taiwanese people working in mainland China’s technology sector. Reuters reported that Beijing rejected the concern and said the rules would provide Taiwanese people with better legal protection. Reuters
The regulation does not single out Taiwan residents, and it does not state that technology workers are restricted merely because of their occupation. Mainland legislation treats travel between mainland China and Taiwan as part of exit and entry administration; Beijing also regards Taiwan’s people as Chinese citizens, a sovereignty claim rejected by Taiwan’s government.
The available information does not establish how the new regulation will be applied to holders of Taiwanese documents, and there was no evidence of a Taiwanese traveller being stopped under the technology provision on its first day. Shen’s remarks are therefore a risk warning, not confirmation of an actual case. National Immigration Administration: Articles 10 and 89 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law; Reuters
Sources
Comments