["Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nThe current international political and economic landscape is increasingly complex and volatile, posing significant challenges to firms' export activities. Against this backdrop, enhancing the resilience of firms in the face of export‐related risks has become a critical issue. This study takes preferential rules of origin as its analytical entry point and conceptualises export resilience in terms of two dimensions: risk resistance capacity and risk recovery capacity. The analysis simultaneously considers the negative impact of restrictive preferential rules of origin on export resilience, while also exploring the positive influence of the core functional logic of preferential rules of origin on firms' ability to withstand and recover from external shocks. Empirical results indicate that a one‐unit increase in the restrictiveness of preferential rules of origin leads to a 1.1% improvement in firms' risk resistance capacity but reduces the likelihood of export recovery by 1.7%. Further analysis reveals heterogeneous effects across firm characteristics and contexts. Specifically, the positive impact of preferential rules of origin on risk resistance is more pronounced for large‐scale firms, firms exporting to non‐OECD countries and those located in eastern China. In contrast, the negative impact on risk recovery is more significant for small‐scale firms, firms whose export destinations are non‐OECD countries and those also situated in eastern China. Mechanism analysis suggests that preferential rules of origin enhance firms' risk resistance by strengthening value chain linkages between China and its FTA partners and by boosting technological innovation at the firm level. However, preferential rules of origin also increase firms' export‐related costs, which in turn impede their ability to recover from adverse shocks. This dual effect underscores the nuanced role of preferential rules of origin in shaping export resilience, with both enabling and constraining consequences depending on firm‐specific and contextual factors.\n"]