On Thursday, October 16, 2025, former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan appeared before the Federal Court in Canberra, Australia, to appeal his extradition to the United States. Duggan, who has been held in maximum security prison since his arrest in October 2022, faces accusations from U.S. authorities that he illegally trained Chinese military pilots in South Africa more than a decade ago. The high-stakes case has attracted international attention, raising questions about the boundaries of national law, the reach of U.S. arms control statutes, and the political tensions between the United States, China, and Australia.
According to Reuters, Duggan, 57, a naturalized Australian citizen and former Marine Corps major, was arrested by Australian Federal Police in a rural New South Wales town shortly after returning from China, where he had lived since 2014. Prosecutors allege that Duggan, while working as an instructor for the Test Flying Academy of South Africa in 2012, conspired with others to provide training to Chinese military pilots without the necessary U.S. government license. The U.S. indictment, unsealed in late 2022, also claims Duggan received about nine payments totaling around $88,000 and traveled to the U.S., South Africa, and China for what was sometimes described as "personal development training."
Duggan, who served in the U.S. Marines for 12 years before migrating to Australia in 2002, gained Australian citizenship in January 2012 and renounced his U.S. citizenship in the process. His lawyers maintain that he was an Australian citizen at the time of the alleged offenses and that the law under which he is being prosecuted was not in force when the training occurred. "My husband broke no Australian law and he was an Australian citizen when the alleged pilot training occurred," Saffrine Duggan, his wife and mother of their six children, told reporters outside the court on Thursday, as reported by AP News.
The case has sparked a wave of public support and protest in Australia. Small groups of demonstrators gathered outside the prison where Duggan has been held for over three years, holding placards and calling for his release. Duggan’s family and supporters argue that he is being used as a pawn in the ongoing geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China. Saffrine Duggan was emphatic, stating, "He is being used as a pawn in an ideological war between the United States and China and the Australian government agencies have allowed this to happen and are willing participants."
Inside the courtroom, Duggan’s lawyer, Christopher Parkin, described the extradition case as "uncharted territory" for Australia. Parkin argued that Duggan’s conduct was not an offense under Australian law at the time it occurred, nor when the U.S. requested extradition, and therefore did not meet the dual criminality requirement in Australia’s extradition treaty with the United States. "This is a fairly extraordinary case," Parkin told the court, according to Reuters. "The offenses must be punishable under the laws of both parties at the time when the relevant conduct occurred," he emphasized, adding, "it should not be possible to punish someone in this country for something they did 10 years ago that wasn't an offense at the time."
The legal team also highlighted that there is no clear evidence the Chinese pilots Duggan trained in South Africa between 2010 and 2012 were military personnel. Furthermore, they noted that Duggan formally renounced his U.S. citizenship at the U.S. embassy in Beijing in 2016, with the certificate backdated to 2012, further complicating the question of jurisdiction.
On the other side, the barrister for the Australian Attorney-General, Trent Glover, disputed Parkin’s interpretation, arguing that nothing in the extradition procedure prevented Duggan from being sent to the United States. The Attorney-General’s office released a statement acknowledging the Federal Court proceedings but declined to comment further while the case remains before the court.
Duggan’s extradition was initially approved in December 2024 by then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. In May 2025, Dreyfus was replaced by Michelle Rowland, who has not yet reviewed her predecessor’s decision. Saffrine Duggan told supporters that Rowland “could set Dan free at any time,” suggesting that the Australian government holds the power to intervene and halt the extradition process.
The U.S. charges against Duggan are rooted in alleged violations of arms control laws and an arms embargo imposed on China by the United States. The indictment accuses him of providing aviation services in China in 2010 and offering assessments of China’s aircraft carrier training. U.S. prosecutors maintain that Duggan’s actions, regardless of where they occurred, fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. law because he was a former U.S. citizen and because the alleged services involved sensitive military knowledge.
Duggan, for his part, has consistently denied the allegations, calling them political posturing by the United States. He claims he has been unfairly singled out and that the charges are part of a broader campaign to deter Western military expertise from assisting China. As NPR reported, Duggan has been held in maximum security prisons since his arrest at a supermarket near his family home in New South Wales, and the prolonged detention has taken a toll on his family. "It's been a real struggle," Saffrine Duggan told Reuters. "We just want Dan to come home."
Australian Federal Court Justice James Stellios presided over Thursday’s one-day hearing but has not yet set a date for announcing a verdict. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for international law, extradition treaties, and the delicate balance of interests between allied nations and their rivals. The case also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of dual citizens, the reach of national laws in a globalized world, and the potential for individuals to become entangled in major power struggles between governments.
For now, Daniel Duggan remains in custody, awaiting a decision that will shape not only his own fate but perhaps set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. With the world watching, the court’s ruling is likely to reverberate well beyond the walls of the Canberra courthouse.
