During the legislative period of Hong Kong National Security Law, Chinese and American newspapers carried out fierce confronting reports on this law. In view of this, the differences of engagement resources of reports on Hong Kong National Security Law from People’s Daily and The Washington Times (20 reports from each) are compared with the help of the engagement system of Appraisal Theory, and the causes of the differences are also revealed. The results show that: on the macro level, both newspapers tend to use monoglossic sentences and trigger heteroglossic dialogues from respective stances of supporting their own countries, People’s Daily has higher ratios of dialogistically contractive resources, while The Washington Times has higher ratios of heteroglossic resources and dialogistically expansive resources; On the micro level, People’s Daily has higher ratios of deny, counter, pronounce, distancing resources, while The Washington Times has higher ratios of entertain and acknowledgement resources. The two newspapers tend to use eight kinds of engagement resources from respective stances of supporting their own countries; The ideological differences between China and the United States are the reasons for the above differences.