The recent disclosure of the US President's budget request for fiscal year 2027 by the White House on April 3rd sends a clear signal: the United States is further embedding technology security, industrial security, and supply chain security into its economic governance framework. The budget documents indicate a near doubling of the allocation for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) under the Department of Commerce, from $235 million in FY2026 to $450 million in FY2027. Concurrently, the National Security Division of the Department of Justice has explicitly stated its intention to continue strengthening enforcement of export controls, investment security reviews, and responses to supply chain risks associated with critical information and communications technology and services. This signifies a shift in US external technology governance from traditional risk prevention towards a more proactive exercise of technological power, supported by fiscal expansion, enhanced enforcement, and the externalization of rules.
As a high-density cooperation zone characterized by vibrant technological innovation, close industrial synergy, and frequent cross-border flows of factors, the Shenzhen-Hong Kong region is facing more than just changes in the external environment. The very international rules, technological flow conditions, and industrial collaboration frameworks that underpin open innovation are undergoing structural reshaping. Consequently, Shenzhen and Hong Kong are not only more susceptible to the pressures emanating from the tightening of external regulations but also find it increasingly necessary to accelerate the redefinition of their collaborative logic and development pathways within this new international context.
The heightened pressure on Shenzhen and Hong Kong is attributable to their unique position in the global innovation chain, marked by strong complementary advantages, intensive cross-border collaboration, and significant institutional differences. Hong Kong serves as a vital interface for international financing, legal services, intellectual property, and professional services, while Shenzhen undertakes functions such as R&D commercialization, pilot testing, scenario validation, supply chain organization, and scaled manufacturing. As cooperation between the two cities deepens in high-tech, high-value-added sectors like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, information communications, and biomedicine, they increasingly find themselves on the front lines of international technology governance friction. Key areas such as advanced chips, semiconductor design tools, software supply chains, cloud computing capabilities, communications infrastructure security, cross-border data processing arrangements, and certain segments of biomedical R&D have consistently fallen under more sensitive and stringent regulatory scrutiny in recent years. The associated impacts have progressively evolved from risks associated with individual cases into systemic compliance constraints.
Data from the Shenzhen Municipal Commerce Bureau's trade remedy reports indicate that US pressure on Shenzhen is primarily centered on Section 337 investigations, which are frequent and heavily concentrated in high-technology sectors. In 2025, the US International Trade Commission initiated 28 Section 337 investigations against China, 17 of which involved Shenzhen, representing a 70% year-on-year increase. These investigations primarily targeted sectors including drones, photographic equipment, electronic cigarettes, smart terminals, and audio-visual equipment, with Shenzhen's high-tech firms and independent brand enterprises being the most significantly impacted. This demonstrates that the pressure on Shenzhen is no longer sporadic friction but rather sustained external pressure focused on critical industrial chains, key products, and specific enterprises.
In contrast, the pressure on Hong Kong is more evident in the realms of entrepot trade and foreign trade compliance. Reports from the Hong Kong SAR government indicate that goods export growth in the first quarter of 2025 was partly driven by "advance shipments," with exports to Mainland China and ASEAN growing relatively quickly, while exports to the US showed only a modest recovery. Against the backdrop of expectations for continued tightening of US policy, Hong Kong's traditional entrepot and international interface functions, while still advantageous, are facing rising uncertainty and compliance pressures. Furthermore, the US Department of Commerce added several Shenzhen-Hong Kong supply chain and electronic trade-related enterprises to its Entity List in September and October 2025, indicating an expansion of US regulatory scrutiny from simply restricting goods exports to conducting penetrating reviews of supply chains, transshipment chains, and service chains.
The collaborative mechanism between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, characterized by frequent cross-border flows, diverse participants, and flexible cooperation models, means that pressure transmits rapidly along the complex and efficient interaction network formed by research institutions, universities, enterprises, capital, and professional service providers. For instance, in certain cross-border collaborations involving high-end equipment, cross-border technical services, and investment/financing arrangements, the repercussions of external rule changes are no longer confined to single approval processes but cascade through procurement, R&D, testing, data, payment, and investment chains. Consequently, cooperation segments that previously progressed rapidly are now experiencing stricter feedback, increased scrutiny, and extended timelines.
In the short term, the focus should be on rapidly converting external pressure into professional response capabilities. US policy signals suggest an increasing reliance on administrative, enforcement-oriented, and exclusionary measures in global technology competition. Future external constraints will likely involve not only stricter rules but also more detailed reviews, more substantive enforcement, and deeper penetration. For Shenzhen and Hong Kong, the most practical immediate step is to transform frequent pain points—such as cross-border research, data flows, professional services, and project due diligence—into robust capabilities in compliance management, process documentation, and risk disposition. Crucially, governance areas like export controls, re-export rules, supply chain due diligence, investment security reviews, data governance, and intellectual property management must be shifted from post-facto remediation to front-end integration, embedded throughout the entire process of R&D design, supply chain organization, financing arrangements, cross-border transactions, and international cooperation, thereby enhancing stable cooperation and contingency response capabilities.
From a medium-term perspective, the goal is to leverage institutional platforms to build resilience against risks. The Hetao Shenzhen-Hong Kong Science and Technology Innovation Cooperation Zone is both a convergence point for the Northern Metropolis and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Corridor and an important testing ground for institutional innovation. Hong Kong has committed to facilitating the cross-border flow of Mainland data into the Hetao Hong Kong Park for scientific research and AI testing innovation, contingent upon compliance and security. Shenzhen, through the "Hetao Shenzhen Park Regulations" effective March 1, 2026, has further institutionalized special supervision, sci-tech innovation cooperation, service guarantees, and the legal environment. Simultaneously, Hong Kong is promoting dedicated legislation for the Northern Metropolis to streamline statutory procedures, facilitate industrial implementation, and enhance project absorption and industrial landing capabilities. Moving forward, Shenzhen and Hong Kong can utilize the Hetao zone to explore mechanisms for cross-border innovation in technology finance, cross-border commercialization of research成果, and facilitated data flows, aiming to build the "one zone, two parks" into an institutional innovation platform that combines customs facilitation, R&D commercialization, and cross-border data functionality, thereby generating replicable and scalable experience through practice.
In the long term, the key lies in constructing a more resilient open innovation ecosystem. The future true competitiveness of Shenzhen and Hong Kong will depend not merely on higher efficiency and lower costs, but on their ability to stably advance scientific research cooperation,成果转化, and industrial layout under more complex and stringent international rules. To achieve this, Shenzhen and Hong Kong must not only promote synergistic linkages between technological innovation, industrial transformation, international services, and governance capabilities but also cultivate professional service capabilities as a core component of the innovation ecosystem. This involves transforming law firms, accounting firms, intellectual property agencies, certification and testing institutions, technology intermediaries, and investment/financing advisors from supporting roles into key nodes within the innovation chain. By focusing on critical areas such as biomedical R&D services, high-end medical devices, AI-enabled healthcare and industrial applications, third-party testing and verification, and the pilot-scale maturation of technological achievements, and achieving breakthrough demonstrations through concrete projects, they can effectively integrate professional services, institutional innovation, and industrial transformation, thereby fostering new synergistic advantages and growth momentum amidst global technological and industrial restructuring.
Comments