Analysis: Long-Term Risks and Real Opportunities in U.S. Uyghur Policy

“Editor’s Note: Ongoing debates within the Uyghur diaspora—particularly outside established advocacy institutions—have questioned the effectiveness of long-standing activism by existing organizations and individuals. Much of this criticism focuses on identifying failures without proposing viable alternatives, and the discussion often remains confined to Uyghurs speaking among themselves in Uyghur. Moreover, because many of these critiques come from “outsiders” who are not widely recognized by so-called international stakeholders in Uyghur human rights advocacy, they are frequently overlooked or dismissed. As a result, valuable insights are rarely adopted, and the gap between thinkers and activists continues to widen. This article offers a perspective that is rarely heard in contemporary Uyghur activism. Uyghur Times aims to provide space for diverse voices, both Uyghur and non-Uyghur, on this important issue.

By Balbal

(Based on the United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy)

In November 2025, the White House released its National Security Strategy (NSS). At the very beginning of the section on China—“Asia: Winning the Economic Future, Avoiding Military Conflict”—the document acknowledges that the strategy pursued by the previous four U.S. administrations of opening doors to China, encouraging U.S. companies to invest there, and relocating manufacturing to China in order to integrate it into a “rules-based international order” has failed. Instead, China exploited that opportunity to amass enormous economic gains and real power. The strategy explicitly defines China as America’s long-term, structural competitor and affirms that the Indo-Pacific will become the decisive arena for economic and political competition for the United States.

Although the 33-page document does not explicitly mention Xinjiang (East Turkistan), an overall conclusion can be drawn by analyzing the U.S. strategy toward China:

The United States will not abandon the Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue. However, this issue is no longer an emotion-driven priority for the U.S.; it is increasingly becoming a rules-based instrument.

This means that between 2018 and 2022, U.S. discourse on Uyghurs (East Turkistan) was dominated by terms such as “genocide,” “crimes against humanity,” “moral responsibility,” and “cannot remain silent.” Congress, the media, NGOs, and survivor testimonies generated strong public emotion. Today, however, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) has become a long-term, institutionalized rule. Embargoes, sanctions lists, and customs inspections have turned into routine administrative agendas.

Unless a major new incident occurs in East Turkistan or there is a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, the Uyghur issue will not rise on its own. Yet there remains room to act through systems, laws, and supply-chain regulations.

Based on this reality, the new U.S. strategy presents three major long-term risks for Uyghurs (East Turkistan) and three important opportunities that the Uyghur diaspora must firmly seize.

Three Risks

1. The Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue shifting from humanitarian to technical

Within the framework of the National Security Strategy, East Turkistan is increasingly defined in technical terms such as a “forced-labor-linked region,” a “contaminated source in global supply chains,” or an “example of expanding technological surveillance.”

As a result, the fate of Uyghurs as concrete human beings—the destruction of Uyghur families, the erasure of culture and language—becomes abstracted and reduced to questions of compliance with technical standards. U.S. government agencies and corporations focus on “meeting requirements,” while survivor testimonies, genocide, cultural destruction, and their long-term global consequences are pushed to the margins.

2. The Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue becoming “stabilized” and losing political urgency

Compared to 2019–2022, there is currently no new major round of U.S. sanctions against China; no new shocking event in East Turkistan has shaken the world; and the issue is increasingly treated internationally as a “known reality.” The perception that “the problem persists, but is no longer urgent” is spreading.

As a result, media attention to the Uyghur issue declines, members of Congress shift focus to other crises, and supporters of the Uyghur cause turn their attention to issues perceived as “more urgent”—all developments unfavorable to the cause.

3. The Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue becoming a “tool” in U.S.–China competition

Under the current U.S. strategic framework, the Uyghur issue has become one of the legal justifications for countering the China threat and a means of providing moral support for U.S. alliance politics.

The danger is that if the U.S. and China reach a form of “phased alignment” in certain areas, the Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue could be downgraded, frozen, or even handled purely as a technical matter. In other words, the Uyghur issue risks becoming not a U.S. “red line,” but merely one of the cards it plays.

Despite this narrowing space, there are still the following three opportunities that Uyghur advocates must seize.

Three Opportunities

1. Legal and administrative enforcement

This is currently the most realistic breakthrough point. Even though political rhetoric around the Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue is declining, the UFLPA is being enforced; Customs, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security retain significant room to expand enforcement measures; and corporate concerns about supply chains persist.

Under these conditions, Uyghur advocates must provide relevant government agencies with more concrete, verifiable supply-chain evidence and leads on “Xinjiang products laundered through third countries.” Survivor testimonies must be directly linked to specific Chinese companies or industries.

In short, rather than repeatedly presenting abstract narratives of oppression, the focus must be on identifying which company’s products are linked to Uyghur forced labor.

2. The rise of technological surveillance and AI-based control as a policy focus

The National Security Strategy identifies the following as core U.S. national security concerns:

• Artificial intelligence
• Biometric identification
• Data-driven governance

In this context, East Turkistan represents the most comprehensive and radical example. Uyghurs there are subjected to large-scale facial recognition, predictive policing, and data-driven ethnic discrimination.

Uyghur advocates should emphasize that East Turkistan is a frontline laboratory for the unchecked use of AI. They must push discussions on standards governing AI use, its ethical consequences, and the link between technological governance and repression of Uyghurs. Advocacy should not be limited to Uyghur suffering alone, but should address the broader social risks East Turkistan faces—and will face—and warn that these risks will not remain confined to the region but will spread globally, including to the United States.

3. Cultural genocide and language eradication

Within the U.S. policy system, forced labor has been institutionalized as a regulatory issue, while the arbitrary detention of Uyghurs has faded into the background. Yet there remains a vast advocacy gap regarding cultural genocide and the destruction of the Uyghur language.

This is one of the most important areas to strengthen now. It has not yet been fully “technified” or “regulated.” There is still space to foreground Uyghur narratives and evidence of cultural destruction.

Language, education, literature, and family separation must be elevated to the level of international law and cultural rights—framed within protections for indigenous peoples and minorities and the promotion of cultural diversity.

Three Strategic Recommendations for Uyghur Advocates

1. Do not wait for U.S. government leadership

The U.S. has moved from a mobilization-based phase to a management-based phase on the Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue. Advocates must proactively supply useful materials, engage not only in political arenas but also directly with administrative agencies.

2. Shift from moral appeals to practical problem-solving

This requires collecting survivor testimonies and concrete evidence of China’s abuses against Uyghurs, including transnational repression, and applying these facts within relevant international and U.S. legal frameworks.

Advocates must move beyond expressing suffering and instead provide administrative agencies with policy solutions, risk-assessment criteria, and institutional recommendations.

3. Bring Uyghurs back to the center of attention

In a highly technified and instrumentalized environment, telling the stories of individuals is a powerful strategy. These stories must be factual, verifiable, and aligned with U.S. policy realities. Emotional or purely sentiment-driven advocacy should not be repeated.

Conclusion

The Uyghur (East Turkistan) issue will not disappear in the United States, but it is being normalized. If Uyghur advocates do not actively recalibrate their approach, they risk being absorbed into others’ strategies and losing control over their own future. The issue will gradually drift off the agenda.

Balbal is a columnist for the Uyghur Post, writing on politics, culture, and diaspora issues.Originally published by the Uyghur Post, this article is translated into English and republished in Uyghur Times upon the outlet’s recommendation.

The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the position of the Uyghur Times.

Please write to Uyghur Times at uyghurtimesenglish @ gmail.com, and share your views on the issues that matter to you—and to all of us. We publish and translate op-eds and letters into Uyghur, English, Chinese, Turkish, and German