China expands exit bans, tightening control over citizens' international travel

China has begun enforcing new rules that give its government sweeping authority to prevent citizens from leaving the country. Under regulations that took effect this week, authorities can ban someone from traveling abroad for up to three years after they return if officials determine that person has "harmed" China's national security or interests while overseas. The rules also apply to anyone who violates technology import and export regulations deemed to threaten the country's industrial or technological security. Chinese officials frame the measures as protective—a safeguard against deception, illegal gambling, and scam operations that prey on citizens abroad. But legal experts and affected individuals paint a different picture: a system designed to punish dissent and control what Chinese citizens say and do beyond their borders.

The scale of exit bans in China has grown dramatically in recent years. In 2016, China's supreme court database contained only 89 records mentioning exit bans. By last year, that number had climbed to 188,760. Between 2019 and 2025, the percentage of civil verdicts involving exit bans surged more than thirtyfold, from roughly 0.23 percent to 7.3 percent. The actual volume is likely far higher, as an increasing number of judgments are withheld from public view. These numbers suggest a system that has become routine, embedded into the machinery of Chinese governance.

What makes the system particularly opaque is that citizens often have no way to know they are restricted until they try to leave. According to publicly available information, Chinese nationals cannot independently check whether they are subject to exit controls. Many discover the ban only when applying for travel documents or attempting to depart. When officials do notify someone, they frequently do so verbally rather than in writing, leaving the person with no official record to challenge. Under China's Administrative Licensing Law, authorities are supposed to explain in writing why they deny an administrative license. But several people interviewed by the BBC said this requirement is not enforced.

Pipi, a 26-year-old Chinese citizen, experienced this opacity firsthand. In 2019, he attended the massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and was interviewed by media outlets covering the demonstrations. When he returned to mainland China, state security police questioned him. In 2023, when he applied for a passport, it was rejected. An immigration official told him the reason: "because of the Hong Kong issue." But nothing was put in writing. "If they have given me an official document, I could apply for administrative reconsideration," Pipi said. "But all they said was one sentence: 'You can't go.'" He did not dare push back, fearing imprisonment. "I'm just an ordinary person, right? I'm a young man, and I haven't done anything bad," he said. "I don't know whether I'll ever be able to leave China."

Restrictions on travel have long existed for certain categories of workers. Xiao Wang, a 32-year-old employee at a state-owned financial institution in Beijing, said his colleagues have been required to surrender their passports and seek approval before traveling overseas. Managers have verbally told staff that "sensitive countries such as Japan are definitely off-limits." Even civil servants working in museums have found it nearly impossible to travel abroad, told they cannot directly apply for passports because of their positions. These informal restrictions have now been formalized and expanded.

Tom Kellogg, executive director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University, views the new rules as another mechanism for Beijing to control its citizens' speech and activism overseas. "In some cases, in order to prevent individuals from criticising the Chinese government overseas or to punish their rights advocacy activities, state security authorities directly refuse to issue passports," Kellogg told BBC Chinese. He called the expanding travel restrictions "deeply concerning" and said they reflect a "growing ideological control under Chinese leader Xi Jinping" that echoes the isolation policies of Mao Zedong's era. International travel only became accessible to ordinary Chinese citizens in the 1990s, after decades of reform and opening. The new restrictions, Kellogg suggested, threaten to reverse that progress.

Chinese authorities defend the rules as necessary and insist they do not restrict ordinary citizens. A government "rumour-refuting" platform posted a statement saying the regulations serve as "a preventative measure against high-risk destinations and individuals with unusual travel patterns." The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and immigration authorities did not respond to requests for comment from BBC Chinese. But the gap between the official framing and lived experience is stark. Citizens face the possibility of being trapped within China's borders for years, often without knowing why, without written explanation, and without a clear path to challenge the decision. The system operates in shadow, its rules applied inconsistently, its scope expanding year by year.