Starbucks Opens First Xinjiang Stores as US Lawmaker Demands Closure and China Rejects Rights Allegations
Updated: 54 minutes ago
SEATTLE/URUMQI, 2 October 2026
Starbucks has opened its first two coffeehouses in Xinjiang, prompting the chairman of the US House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party to demand their immediate closure and intensifying scrutiny of how a global consumer brand applies its human-rights commitments in a region associated with grave abuses against Uyghurs.
The outlets are at Ürümqi’s International Grand Bazaar and airport. Reuters reported the call by Representative John Moolenaar on 2 October, a day after the committee published his statement. China’s Foreign Ministry responded that allegations of repression were “naked lies” and said Xinjiang enjoyed stability, growth, ethnic unity and religious harmony. Reuters; House Select Committee statement
The dispute turns a commercial expansion into a question of corporate human-rights responsibility. Critics say that the arrival of a prominent international brand in a tourism setting helps project an image that life in Xinjiang has fully normalised. Starbucks China says all its stores follow the same brand standards and responsible-business principles. Publicly available evidence does not establish that the two coffeehouses use forced labour, buy goods produced through coercive programmes or participate directly in detention or surveillance. The immediate issue is therefore brand association, risk identification and due diligence, rather than proven legal complicity. Financial Times; The Guardian
Two stores and a political demand without binding force
The stores opened on 29 September, according to the Financial Times and the Guardian. The Grand Bazaar branch features drinks, decoration and merchandise described as drawing upon local culture, while the airport outlet serves travellers. Videos on Chinese social media showed queues during the opening and merchandise incorporating patterns and clothing described as ethnically local. Financial Times; The Guardian
In his committee statement of 1 October, Moolenaar called the move “morally bankrupt”, invoked the US government’s characterisation of abuses in Xinjiang as genocide, and told Starbucks to reverse course and close the stores. This is a public political demand from a congressman and committee chairman. It is not a court order, an administrative prohibition or a measure enacted by Congress, and the present record does not show that Starbucks is legally required to shut the branches. House Select Committee statement; Reuters
Control of the company’s Chinese retail operation has recently changed. Starbucks completed its joint venture with Boyu Capital in April. Funds managed by Boyu hold 60 per cent of the China retail business; Starbucks retains 40 per cent and continues to own and license the brand and intellectual property. The venture took responsibility for about 8,000 coffeehouses, with a stated long-term ambition to reach as many as 20,000. The Xinjiang stores are therefore operated within the joint venture, but Starbucks has not relinquished its ownership interest, brand-licensing role or commercial relationship. Starbucks Form 8-K; Reuters on the joint venture
The human-rights basis of the criticism
The UN human-rights office’s 2022 assessment of Xinjiang found that a pattern of large-scale arbitrary detention had occurred under China’s counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” policies. It judged allegations of torture or ill-treatment credible and concluded that the extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim groups, amid broader restrictions upon fundamental rights, may constitute international crimes, particularly crimes against humanity. OHCHR assessment of Xinjiang
The UN assessment did not make a legal finding of genocide or certify “more than one million” as a precise independently verified detention total. The number and the genocide terminology in Moolenaar’s statement reflect the positions of the US government and the committee. Presenting either as a UN adjudication would go beyond the evidence. The narrower findings supported by the UN document are that serious violations occurred, a large-scale pattern of arbitrary detention was established, and the conduct may constitute crimes against humanity. OHCHR assessment; House Select Committee statement
The World Uyghur Congress called upon Starbucks to stand on what it described as the right side of history. Maya Wang, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, told the Guardian that the appearance of Starbucks on Xinjiang’s streets fitted the party-state’s effort to present the region as unproblematic. These are assessments by advocacy organisations, not judicial findings about the conduct of the two stores. The Guardian
Responses from Beijing and Starbucks
China’s Foreign Ministry told Reuters that US allegations of repression in Xinjiang were “naked lies”. It said the region enjoyed a stable society, economic growth, ethnic unity and religious harmony, and added that China would provide further investment opportunities for foreign companies. Beijing has long defended its measures in Xinjiang as necessary responses to terrorism, separatism and religious extremism and denies systematic abuse. Reuters
That response states China’s position but does not address separately the evidence in the UN assessment concerning detention, family separation, restrictions upon religion and culture, allegations of torture and the lack of effective remedies. Conversely, the UN report principally examined state policy and earlier patterns of abuse; it did not investigate coffeehouses opened in 2026 and cannot by itself establish wrongdoing by their staff, suppliers or products. OHCHR assessment
Starbucks did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment on 2 October. The Guardian said it had contacted Starbucks and Boyu Capital without receiving a public response. A Starbucks China spokesperson had, however, told the Financial Times that every Starbucks coffeehouse operated under the same brand standards and values, including those concerning responsible business practices. China chief executive Molly Liu also said on the company’s official WeChat platform that it would continue investing in Xinjiang. Reuters; Financial Times; The Guardian
Those responses confirm an intention to continue operating, but the company has not publicly released a Xinjiang-specific human-rights impact assessment or explained the stores’ local recruitment, suppliers of non-coffee ingredients and merchandise, security arrangements, worker grievance channels or independent auditing. The absence of public documentation does not prove that the company has no internal controls. It means that outsiders cannot presently test how its promise of responsible business is implemented at these outlets.
Tourism expansion and the presentation of culture
The Financial Times, citing Chinese official data, reported that Xinjiang received 323 million tourist visits in 2025, eight per cent more than the previous year, generating about $52 billion in spending. International hotel groups have also expanded in the region. The newspaper counted 163 properties operated by major international brands and more than 50 others under construction or in planning. Those figures derive principally from official statistics and the newspaper’s industry research and could not be independently checked from within Xinjiang for this report. Financial Times
Supporters of commercial opening may argue that investment in restaurants and tourism creates jobs, services and consumer choice and is not in itself endorsement of government policy. Critics focus upon a different risk: when cultural motifs are used to attract visitors while allegations of restrictions upon religion, language and cultural practice remain unresolved, marketing can turn minority identity into a commercial spectacle and divert attention from abuses. The Guardian; OHCHR assessment
Reuters said that photographs released by the company showed English and Chinese branding but no obvious Uyghur-language signs. That observation applies only to the angles visible in public images. It does not prove that no Uyghur text appears elsewhere or, by itself, establish a breach of local language rules. It identifies a question for further verification, not a confirmed case of linguistic exclusion. Reuters
The reach of corporate responsibility
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights say that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights wherever they operate and regardless of their size. They should identify actual and potential impacts, prevent or mitigate harm, track their responses and communicate how impacts are addressed. This responsibility exists independently of a state’s ability or willingness to meet its own duty to protect, but the Guiding Principles are not themselves a verdict that a particular company has acted unlawfully. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Starbucks’ Global Human Rights Statement says the company supports international human-rights standards. Its 2025 Responsible Sourcing Supplier Resource Guide says its programme seeks to protect supply-chain workers in accordance with the UN principles and includes third-party assessment and corrective-action processes. Those corporate commitments do not substitute for information specific to Xinjiang, and auditing suppliers is not identical to evaluating the brand, community and state-policy risks created by a decision about where to open a store. Starbucks Global Human Rights Statement; Starbucks Responsible Sourcing Supplier Resource Guide
The evidence therefore supports neither a conclusion that Starbucks has been proved to participate in crimes against humanity nor an assumption that ordinary operating standards remove every risk. What can be established is that the brand has entered Xinjiang for the first time; Starbucks retains an equity interest and licenses its name to the venture; an international institution has formally documented grave abuses in the region; and the company has not published enough store-specific information for external assessment. That creates a substantive case for due diligence and transparency, rather than a completed attribution of legal liability.
Sources
Comments