Rights Defense Commentary: A Legal Analysis of the Exit Restriction Incident Involving Feng Zhenghu and Concerns for Citizens’ Rights

The exit ban imposed on Feng Zhenghu at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport on March 17, 2026, is not only a specific case of administrative restriction, but also reveals more profound problems concerning the protection of Chinese citizens’ basic rights and the boundaries of the exercise of administrative power. Because of its typical features of “no document, no reason, and no time limit,” the incident quickly became a key example for examining procedural and substantive justice in the practice of the rule of law in China.

I、Legality and Procedural Defects of the Exit Ban

According to the official account, Feng Zhenghu’s exit was restricted because he was deemed “likely to endanger national security.” The Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Exit and Entry of Citizens does grant state organs the power to restrict citizens from leaving the country under certain circumstances, including “endangering national security.” However, statutory authorization is not unlimited, and its exercise must comply with strict procedural requirements and substantive conditions.

In this case, the central points of contention are:

1. Lack of written notification: Feng Zhenghu did not receive any legally effective written notification informing him of the decision to restrict his exit. One of the foundations of the legality of an administrative act is that the decision and its reasons are clearly communicated to the affected party, thereby safeguarding citizens’ rights to know and to make representations. This method of oral notification or on-site interception seriously undermines the credibility and transparency of the administrative act.

2. Abstractness of the reasons and lack of evidence: “Likely to endanger national security,” as a highly general reason, is undoubtedly vague and unpersuasive when unsupported by any specific factual basis. The law’s definition of “endangering national security” should be rigorous and specific, requiring the administrative authority to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that a citizen’s particular conduct or intentions actually pose a real or imminent threat to national security. Yet there are no specific cases or evidence to support how Feng Zhenghu, an ordinary citizen, or his daily activities and speech, could be assessed as sufficient to “endanger national security.” This seriously calls into question the legitimacy of the administrative decision.

3. Uncertainty of the duration: The exit ban sets no definite time limit and is effectively an “indefinite” restriction. This not only conflicts with the principle that administrative coercive measures should have clear time limits under the law, but also directly brings Feng Zhenghu’s personal life and work plans to a complete standstill, leaving him in a prolonged state of uncertainty and constituting a disguised form of punishment.

These procedural deficiencies cast an illegal shadow over the exit ban from the outset. They challenge the basic requirements of modern rule-of-law states concerning the legality and procedural propriety of administrative power.

II、Serious Imbalance of the Principle of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality is a core principle of modern administrative law. It requires administrative authorities, when adopting measures, to ensure a reasonable connection between the means employed and the objective pursued, and to limit interference with citizens’ rights to the minimum necessary extent.

In this incident, even assuming that certain national-security risks existed (despite the lack of evidence), the exit restriction imposed on Feng Zhenghu appears excessively harsh and disproportionate:

1. Reasonableness of the objective and the means: How could a citizen’s act of leaving the country directly and inevitably lead to “endangering national security”? If such a serious restriction is imposed merely on the basis of a general political climate or generalized concern about dissidents, this undoubtedly individualizes and extends without limit what is a general issue. This suggests that the administrative authority may have failed to conduct a specific and detailed assessment of Feng Zhenghu’s “dangerousness,” instead adopting a “one-size-fits-all” approach to administration.

2. Necessity and minimum interference: Restricting a citizen’s exit from the country constitutes a major deprivation of the fundamental right to freedom of movement. Where other milder and less intrusive methods are available to manage the so-called “risk,” directly imposing an exit restriction clearly does not comply with the principle of minimum interference. For example, if there were truly a so-called “threat,” why was the matter not investigated or prosecuted through judicial procedures? Why were other more targeted monitoring measures not adopted?

3. Impact on personal life: The exit restriction not only prevented Feng Zhenghu from carrying out his planned trip, but also dealt a heavy blow to the maintenance of his marital relationship, the arrangement of his daily life, and his mental state. In a rule-of-law society, every administrative act should fully take into account its potential impact on citizens’ personal rights and well-being. In this case, this “uncertain and opaque” restriction undoubtedly caused a serious infringement of the citizen’s personal freedom and right to happiness. The abandonment of the principle of proportionality has transformed administrative power from a tool for safeguarding social order into an invisible blade suppressing individual freedom.

III、The Difficulties and Marginalization of the Administrative Reconsideration System

The administrative reconsideration system is intended to provide citizens with a channel for redress against improper or unlawful acts by administrative authorities and is an important mechanism for administrative self-correction. However, in Feng Zhenghu’s case, the effectiveness of this system faces serious challenges.

When citizens attempt to seek justice through administrative reconsideration procedures, they often encounter exceptional treatment based on claims that information involves “state secrets.” Once an administrative authority refuses to disclose relevant information or provide a detailed explanation on the grounds that it “involves state secrets,” substantive review in the administrative reconsideration process becomes difficult to undertake and is effectively rendered meaningless. The reconsideration authority cannot fully examine all the evidence, while the respondent (that is, the person subject to the exit restriction) is also unable to mount an effective rebuttal. The abuse of this “state-secret” privilege effectively hollows out the supervisory function of administrative reconsideration, rendering the power of administrative authorities in certain areas almost unconstrained and seriously weakening citizens’ right to seek redress.

IV、The Far-Reaching Impact on Citizens’ Fundamental Rights and Reflection on the Rule of Law

The incident involving Feng Zhenghu’s restricted exit is not an isolated case. It reflects a series of deep-seated problems in the current development of the rule of law in China:

1. The boundary between citizens’ rights and national security: How to respect and protect citizens’ fundamental rights to the greatest extent while safeguarding national security is an enduring question for the rule of law. This case demonstrates that, in practice, the grand narrative of national security is sometimes overgeneralized and becomes a “universal justification” for restricting citizens’ rights, blurring the boundary between lawful administration and arbitrary interference.

2. Lack of checks and supervision over power: When administrative power can restrict citizens’ freedom with “no document, no reason, and no time limit,” this indicates a lack of effective internal checks and external supervision mechanisms. The cornerstones of modern rule of law, including administrative openness, procedural justice, and judicial review, failed to play their full role in such an incident.

3. Erosion of social trust: The frequent occurrence of such incidents will inevitably erode citizens’ trust in the credibility of the government and the rule-of-law system. When citizens discover that their fundamental rights may be easily deprived without a clear legal basis and procedural safeguards, their sense of security and expectations of social stability will suffer a serious blow.

In conclusion, the incident involving Feng Zhenghu’s restricted exit is not only an injustice suffered by him personally, but also a severe test of China’s legal civilization and the protection of citizens’ rights. It urges us to reflect deeply on how to truly embody the authority of the law in administrative practice, how to ensure that administrative power operates within the framework of the rule of law, and how to effectively protect the lawful rights and interests of every citizen from unlawful infringement. Only by achieving higher standards of both procedural and substantive justice can we build a truly fair, just, and law-based society.