US Lawmakers push bill seeking sanctions on Pakistan's Army Chief, demand Imran Khan’s release

New bill seeks to sanction Pakistan’s army chief, free former PM Khan.

A bipartisan bill introduced in the US Congress seeks to impose sanctions on Pakistan's Army chief, General Asim Munir, for his alleged role in persecuting political opponents, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The Hill reported that the legislation, titled the "Pakistan Democracy Act," was introduced by Representatives Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.). The bill calls for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

The bill requires the US government to identify, within 180 days, individuals involved in political persecution in Pakistan and enforce penalties such as visa bans and entry restrictions into the United States. It specifically accuses Munir of "knowingly engaging in the wrongful persecution and imprisonment of political opponents" and calls for similar measures against others implicated in the crackdown.

Joe Wilson has been vocal in his calls for Khan’s release and has consistently demanded action against Pakistan’s military, holding them responsible for his "unjust detention." "Mr. Khan is clearly a political prisoner," Wilson told The Hill. He further stated that he had written to Donald Trump, urging him to "put pressure on Pakistan’s military leadership, including through visa bans, to restore democracy and release Mr. Khan."

Members of Congress from both parties have advocated for Khan’s release, as he continues to face multiple charges following his removal from office in 2022. Khan was ousted through a no-confidence vote and subsequently arrested on corruption charges in August 2023. His supporters argue that these charges are politically motivated and aimed at preventing his return to power.

Several lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also called for Khan’s release, including Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), August Pfluger (R-Texas), and Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), among others.

Earlier this month, Donald Trump, in a joint address to Congress, thanked the Pakistan government for aiding in the arrest of an Islamic State (ISIS) member linked to the 2021 Kabul airport attack. Last week, US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment on Khan’s situation, stating that the administration does not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, The Hill reported.

The Hill quoted former Pakistani envoy to the U.S. and Hudson Institute senior fellow Husain Haqqani as saying that Washington was unlikely to impose sanctions on Pakistan solely to secure Imran Khan’s release. "It is unlikely that sanctions would be imposed on Pakistan just to secure the release of a populist but anti-American politician," he said, citing Khan’s past hostility toward the U.S.

After his 2022 ouster through a no-confidence vote, Khan alleged his removal was part of an "American conspiracy," accusing opposition leaders of colluding with Washington. He claimed the U.S. opposed him due to his independent foreign policy and anti-imperialist stance. His party’s rallies featured anti-American slogans, denouncing "foreign slavery."

Rep. Joe Wilson, despite his disagreements with Khan—such as Khan’s defence of China and hesitance to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—emphasised that political issues should be resolved through elections. "Political differences should be dealt with at the ballot box," he said.

Michael Kugelman, South Asia director at the Wilson Center, also expressed doubts that the U.S. would sanction Pakistan over Khan’s detention. He noted the irony of Khan’s supporters blaming the U.S. for his downfall while now seeking its intervention. "Khan supporters counter that it’s about ‘reversing an interference,’ but that itself is a highly partisan statement as it assumes the U.S. was complicit in Khan’s ouster," he told The Hill.

Haqqani suggested that U.S. lawmakers’ calls for action were more about "constituency politics and responding to donors" than genuine concern over Khan’s plight.