Anming Hu 胡安明

On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK).

Professor Hu was the second China Initiative case involving a U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry. He was charged with three counts each of wire fraud and making false statements, but not espionage. The charges stemmed from his purported failure to disclose affiliations with a Chinese university while receiving funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Professor Hu was the first to go to trial. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. The jury includes 4 women and 8 men - all white.

This was an embarrassing outcome for DOJ to fail on the very first trial under the China Initiative. What was even more embarrassing was the overzealous tactics and misconduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) revealed during the trial.

On the part of UTK administrators, they concealed the federal investigation from Professor Hu, provided his records to the authorities without a warrant or informing him, suspended him without pay, and fired him shortly after. Without any attempt to protect its faculty, UTK was broadly criticized for throwing Professor Hu “under the bus.”

Despite the absence of evidence and misconduct, DOJ opted to pursue a retrial on July 30, 2021, prompting outrage by members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public.

On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment.

“The government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK," he wrote.

Professor Hu was born in China and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. He joined the UTK faculty in 2013. At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay. His son had to withdraw from UTK due to financial difficulties.

UTK terminated Professor Hu’s employment on October 8, 2020, citing the termination was not for cause but for “not eligible to work due to policy or regulations.”

On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory.

After a long delay, Professor Hu’s application for U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024.

2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations

The jury trial of Professor Hu started on June 7, 2021.

On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked.

Knox News reporter Jamie Satterfield provided end-to-end coverage of the trial. Although it was not her original assignment, Satterfield was on site to observe witness testimony, read records related to the case, and conducted a thorough, independent investigation.

According to the Knox News reports, FBI agent Kujtim Sadiku admitted in court testimonies that federal agents:

Falsely accused Professor Hu of being a spy for China,
Falsely implicated him as an operative for the Chinese military in meetings with Professor Hu’s superiors,
Used false information to put Professor Hu on the federal no-fly list,
Spurred U.S. customs agents to seize Professor Hu’s computer and phone and spread word throughout the international research community that Professor Hu was poison,
Used false information to justify putting a team of agents to spy on Professor Hu and his son, a freshman at UTK, for nearly two years,
Used false information to press Professor Hu to become a spy for the U.S. government.

During cross-examination, defense attorney Phil Lomonaco said to Sadiku, “You wanted to find a Chinese spy in Knoxville,” making note of the tactics he used to secure a fraud indictment against Professor Hu.

“My job is to find spies, yes,” the FBI agent responded.

During the trial, Sadiku admitted to not knowing the last time Professor Hu was in China.

“You’ve been carrying around his passport … haven’t you?” Lomonaco asked Sadiku. “You know you’re under oath, right?”

“I don’t remember the dates on it. … I wouldn’t rely on that document,” Sadiku responded.

Lomonaco asked if Sadiku could return Professor Hu’s passport.

During the trial, Sadiku was unable to recall who tipped him off that Professor Hu might be a spy.

Sadiku claimed that his investigation had nothing to do with the China Initiative when the Trump administration was pushing federal prosecutors to round up Chinese spies under the China Initiative.

He also claimed that his investigation began with an “open source” search for information on Professor Hu, which turned out to be a Google search on the professor.

“If you can find it by Google search, how can it be that Professor Hu was hiding it as a secret,” Satterfield raised the rhetorical question after the mistrial.

Sadiku admitted to telling university officials that Professor Hu was a Chinese military operative, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. He never followed up with the officials to clarify that his statements were false.

Federal prosecutors then shifted their focus away from unsupported spy allegations. Instead, they pursued a case of fraud, citing a law known as the NASA restriction.

This law prohibits NASA from funding research involving collaboration with China or Chinese-owned companies. Professor Hu was accused of intentionally omitting his part-time teaching job at the Beijing University of Technology (BJUT) from disclosure forms, allegedly violating the NASA restriction.

However, the law does not bar NASA from funding research that involves collaboration with Chinese universities. NASA itself added Chinese universities to its restrictions list and the DOJ under the Trump administration used it as an excuse in 2018 to search American universities for China-born researchers as potential spies.

Professor Hu was not the only professor born in China targeted as part of the China Initiative, but his trial is the first legal test of that NASA policy.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Arrowood argued that Professor Hu began plotting to violate the NASA restriction in 2013 — two years after it was enacted — by leaving his part-time teaching job at BJUT off his UTK “outside interests” form.

However, testimony showed that UTK officials told Professor Hu and all its research personnel the NASA restriction did not apply to its “faculty, staff and students” because they are not “entities of China.” A letter, dubbed the China Assurance and sent to NASA with each UTK grant proposal, repeated the same language.

Professor Hu’s affiliation with BJUT was clearly listed in other UTK documents and in dozens of research papers posted on the Internet.

Lomonaco also noted it was not Professor Hu who sought a NASA grant. It was NASA who sought Professor Hu’s technology. “They wanted him to work on this project,” Lomonaco said. “(A NASA contractor) sought him out because he was so qualified. (Hu) wasn’t trying to trick NASA.”

2021/07/30 Outrage at DOJ Motion for Retrial

On July 30, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it intends to retry the case against Professor Anming Hu after FBI agents admitted under oath to knowingly building a case on falsified evidence to find a non-existent spy, resulting in a mistrial.

In statement issued by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, she said, “Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime. Many of the FBI’s cases have been flawed from the start, evident in the number of cases that have been dropped without any explanation, and despite the incredible harm done to those whose lives have been turned upside down by these investigations. The case of Dr. Anming Hu is the most glaring example of how investigations rooted in racial profiling lead to flimsy cases that cannot stand up in court. Worse, in order to justify this investigation, we know that FBI agents have falsified evidence. Yet instead of accepting that Dr. Hu does not in any way present a threat to our national security, the DOJ is disappointingly doubling down, pressing for a retrial to justify their fruitless investigation. We must take national security threats seriously, but the China Initiative does not work, and has threatened a return to prejudice as a cornerstone of policy. Unless the DOJ has new evidence against Dr. Hu, this case must be dropped and the China Initiative halted.”

After the government made its announcement, defense attorney Philip Lomonaco filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, which was originally filed on June 11, 2021. The motion for acquittal was made because "the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is no evidence that Professor Hu willfully intended to deceive NASA... Without the intent to deceive there can be no wire fraud conviction. Without the convictions for wire fraud, the remaining counts would fail as well... In the alternative, Defendant would rely on previous briefings to the Court regarding the lack of intent to harm NASA as being a defense to wire fraud as well."

On August 20, 2021, APA Justice and a coalition of nine national and local organizations sent a letter to Judge Thomas A. Varlan urging him to dismiss the case and acquit Professor Hu in the best interest of justice and fairness.

The letter provides the Asian American historical perspective on racial profiling, including the government's continuing use of xenophobic labels on Asian Americans such as "Non-traditional Collectors" and "Thousand Grains of Sand," as well as a continuing pattern with the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Professor Xiaoxing Xi, and Ms. Sherry Chen prior to the China Initiative.

The first trial shows that Professor Hu’s case has nothing to do with theft of American trade secrets. It started as an economic espionage investigation based on a false premise and failed with misinformation to implicate Professor Hu as a spy for China and attempt to press him to spy for the U.S. government. Congress made inquiries into the alleged FBI misconduct.

It is with this historical perspective and the prevailing facts in his case that we find the intent by the DOJ to retry Professor Hu to be deeply concerning and invidious.

Massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars and federal resources have already been spent without accountability to inflict enormous harm to Professor Hu and his family in the government’s zeal to hunt for a non-existent spy. Overzealous investigations such as Professor Hu’s undermines the U.S. Constitution as the government should have at least a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before launching an investigation, and race, ethnicity or national origin should not be used to profile people. The co-signers of the letter were:

Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
Asian-American Community Service Council
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)
Defending Rights & Dissent
Greater Nashville Chinese Association (GNCA)
New England Chinese American Coalition (NECAC)
Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA)
San Francisco Community Alliance for Unity, Safety & Education (SFCause)
University of Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of University Professors

The following organizations co-signed the letter at a later date:

Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC)
Calvin J Li Memorial Foundation
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates

Carl Patton, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University, and The Committee of Concerned Scientists also sent their letters to Judge Varlan urging the dismissal of Professor Hu's case on August 2 and 4, 2021 respectively.

2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges

The first trial of Professor Hu revealed the zeal of the misguided China Initiative to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial.

A former juror said after the first trial, “It was the most ridiculous case.” About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.”

Despite the egregious abuses of authority and lack of evidence, DOJ motioned for a retrial of Professor Hu on July 30, 2021.

The blatant disregard of fairness and justice outraged members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public.

On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment.

Judge Varlan wrote on page 42 of the 52-page ruling acquitting Hu that "the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK."

According to two legal experts, the judge's ruling has particular significance and relevance in similar cases against an academic under the China Initiative. On page 38 of the ruling, the judge wrote:

The Sixth Circuit’s Frost decision is squarely aligned with Takhalov’s conclusion that the federal wire fraud statute requires the intent to cause a tangible harm to the victim regarding the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Frost’s ultimate conclusion that the lack of tangible harm meant there was insufficient evidence on the element of intent to Case 3:20-cr-00021-TAV-DCP Document 141 Filed 09/09/21 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 2333 39 defraud, 125 F.3d at 361–62, further confirms that Takhalov’s definition of the term “defraud” in the federal wire fraud statute is correct and applies equally in this Circuit.

The two legal experts opined that the judge required a high standard of “a specific intent to defraud” so as to receive some financial benefits. Professor Hu’s alleged hiding of his relationship with BJUT was not to defraud NASA for money. Accordingly, the wire fraud charges should be dropped. This means that this will make DOJ's wire fraud charge against other professors considerably harder.

In addition, the judge carefully described how UTK failed to provide clear guidance and training to the professors on the restrictions of the collaboration with Chinese institutions, which explains why Professor Hu did not fully disclose his affiliation with the Chinese university. This problem is common in nearly all universities in the U.S. and can be used as a reason to fight the charges against other professors.

2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting

Professor Anming Hu, his wife Ivy Yang, and defense attorney Phil Lomonaco spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021, only days after Professor Hu’s acquittal.

Phil led off the meeting with the good news about the acquittal of Professor Hu on September 9, 2021. He expressed appreciation for the interest, support, and help from many to Professor Hu and his family through the trying times. There were many twists and turns in the case.

As the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative, it was very important to have a good outcome for Professor Hu’s case, and Phill could not ask for anything better.

Judge Thomas Varlan right from the beginning was open. He looked at the pre-trial motions where Phil set off the facts and arguments. The judge was open to waiting to see the evidence at trial - whether what Phil said in his papers really came true through the witnesses’ testimonies.

The judge paid attention and was very much on point with everything in his memorandum opinion, granting the rule 29 motion by tracking the trial.

Basically, Judge Varlan found there was no preponderance of the evidence to convince a jury that Professor Hu was guilty even given in a light most favorable to the government. The government did not provide sufficient evidence of guilt.

The judge found two reasons why Professor Hu was innocent of wire fraud.

The first being that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to deceive NASA, or fraudulently represent a material fact to NASA, that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that.

The second theory Phil had propounded was that there was no damage or Professor Hu did not intend to injure NASA. Phil found a case law supporting the theory that if NASA is not damaged, or if Professor Hu was not taking property or money from NASA, or intended to take property and money from NASA, he could not be convicted of wire fraud.

Phil cited a case out of the 11-th Circuit that held if there is no harm there is no foul, so to speak. It was a district court judge who is sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it would have been Judge Varlan’s boss if he disagreed with that theory. That was another blessing that God provided, Phil said.

Without the proof that Professor Hu knowingly and intentionally tried to deceive NASA, the last three counts of false statements were also not supported by evidence. If he did not intend to deceive NASA, then he did not intend to make false statements.

Under Rule 29, the judge granted an acquittal on all six counts of the indictment.

The last email Phil received from the government said that they were still trying to figure out their appeal options, which Phil did not think they had any, but he would see what they would say. They had a few days to absorb what had happened to make a statement officially in court if they were going to.

Phil was very happy with Professor Hu for being a trooper all the way through this process. Professor Hu did not waver to prove his innocence. And that is the kind of client Phil likes – those who are innocent although it is the most stressful type of representation. Phil wishes all his clients had two PhDs, which would be a lot more helpful.

Ivy Yang, wife of Professor Hu, followed Phil and expressed gratitude on behalf of their family including three children. The broad support they have received gave them comfort and inspiration to fight against injustice with determination and faith.

History is made by people who are the true patriots of this country. Ivy thanked Phil as their beloved attorney and a wise and humble man. History was made by Phil, the jury, Jamie Satterfield, Judge Varlan, CAPAC, APA Justice, AAJC, United Chinese Americans, Asian American Scholar Forum, Committee of Concerned Scientists, American Association of University Professors, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and many, many more persons and organizations.

For everyone who made donations, provided encouragement, and watched the case closely, Ivy thanked them for providing the strength for her family to continue the fight. She said Anming is an ordinary passionate scientist who only wanted to perform his research and to contribute his talents to the academic world. What has happened in the past years has damaged his career and reputation that was built over many years of tremendous unbelievable hard work. Although their lives have been forever changed and they are not sure of what the future holds, they will be forever thankful for the selfless actions of individuals who believed and supported them throughout the entire journey despite the backlash, oppression, and fear of injustice.

Professor Hu concluded with his brief comments. It was still too challenging for him to find the proper words and no words would be adequate to express his deep appreciation for what so many have done for him. The scars and the painful memories are still there in his heart. For now, he preferred to remain silent and let Phil speak on the case and Ivy to speak for the family.

Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University (AAUP), also spoke at the meeting.

2021/12/18 AASF Webinar

On December 18, 2021, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a webinar titled “The China Initiative and Professor Anming Hu’s Case.”

Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, served as moderator.

Featured speakers were:

Dr. Anming Hu, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Mara Hvistendahl, Investigative reporter with The Intercept and the author of the book The Scientist and the Spy: A True Story of China, the FBI, and Industrial Espionage, on a case that foreshadowed the China Initiative
Jamie Satterfield, Investigative journalist with more than 33 years of experience, specializing in legal affairs, policing, public corruption, environmental crime and civil rights violations

Additional speakers included:

Steven Pei, Asian American Scholar Forum
Phil Lomonaco, defense attorney
Wendy Chandler, former juror of the first trial
Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors

Mara Hvistendahl led off with historical context of targeting Chinese Americans dating back to the Second Red Scare and Dr. Qian Xuesen to the recent cases of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi prior to the launch of the China Initiative.

For the first time since his acquittal, Professor Hu talked in detail about his experience and thoughts of his ordeal.

Jamie Satterfield, despite not being originally assigned to the case, described her investigative reporting. Her invaluable reports significantly impacted public understanding and perception of Professor Hu’s case in Tennessee and nationwide.

Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case”

A week after the first trial was declared to be a mistrial, on June 23, 2021, the Intercept published an interview with Wendy Chandler, a juror who served on the hung jury.

When Chandler was called to serve on a federal jury in Tennessee, she trusted the prosecutors and the FBI. She was known only as Juror 44 in the case.

She knew she had to keep an open mind. But surely there would be some merit to what the FBI had found, she thought. The government wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.

“I walked in assuming the government had some reason to be there, assuming that they were coming at it with honesty and integrity,” she told Mara Hvistendahl in the first interview given by a juror in the case. “I assumed the best for them.”

Chandler understood the complexity and importance of the case and committed to paying close attention, even adjusting her sleep schedule.

But as the trial progressed, she grew increasingly skeptical. After six days of hearing witnesses and arguments, she came to a conclusion.

“It was the most ridiculous case,” she said. About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.”

The trial ended in a hung jury. Chandler, one of four women on the all-white jury, was one of the holdouts.

She came away believing that the lead FBI agent in the case had pursued the investigation out of ambition rather than an interest in justice. She also believed that when faced with questions from federal agents, the administrators who had advised Hu on his grant applications caved and hastily sacrificed their faculty. “This poor man just got sold down the river by his university and everyone else,” Chandler said.

Professor Hu’s case follows a long history of FBI surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S., some of it with disastrous results. In the 1960s, the bureau compiled lists of researchers with ties to China. In the 1980s, agents tailed renowned physicist Chang-Lin Tien, who later became the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, an FBI and Department of Energy investigation into Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee imploded in a series of missteps.

“There has been very clear messaging from the Justice Department to the field offices that this is a massive priority and they should take it very seriously,” said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall University. “You combine that with calling it the China Initiative and issues with implicit bias, and you’re creating a recipe for unconscious decision-making to occur in a way that can pull you towards certain people as potential suspects.”

In February, civil rights groups, researchers, and others jointly wrote House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Jamie Raskin to request a hearing on investigations of ethnic Asian scientists. Maryland state Sen. Susan C. Lee, who signed the letter, told The Intercept, “We just want some accountability, because you’re talking about people’s lives.”

Prosecutors tried to paint Professor Hu as duplicitous. In closing arguments, assistant U.S. attorney Casey Arrowood asserted, “He intentionally hid his ties to China to further his career. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is just that simple.”

Professor Hu’s attorney had a different view.

“This case is really embarrassing,” Lomonaco countered. “It makes me want to vomit.”

The jury began deliberating that afternoon, June 14. It was clear to Chandler from the outset that the jurors didn’t agree. By the end of the day, after three hours of deliberations, they had not reached a verdict.

Driving home that night, she burst into tears. “I was so scared for this man,” she recalled. The trial had left her with the feeling that the government was charging Professor Hu to justify its lengthy investigation. “They spent all this time and money on this big giant nothing burger, and they were not going to leave without a pound of flesh.”

The jury resumed deliberations on June 16 and discussed the case for the entire day. At 4:45 p.m., the foreperson reported to the court that they were deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial.

After she was dismissed from jury duty, Chandler found Professor Hu’s GoFundMe page, which his wife started to cover his legal fees, and donated $20. She believes the government now owes Professor Hu an apology and that the University of Tennessee should offer him his job back. As Chandler put it, “He deserves so much, this man, with what was done to him.”

Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out

Soon after the acquittal of Professor Hu, Professor Mary McAlpin, President of the UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and Professor of French at UTK, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021.

AAUP is a nonprofit membership association of faculty and other academic professionals. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AAUP members and chapters based at colleges and universities across the country. Founded in 1915, AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities.

AAUP defines fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, advance the rights of academics, particularly as those rights pertain to academic freedom and shared governance, and promote the interests of higher education teaching and research.

AAUP looks into not only questions of tenured professors but also the protection of non-tenure track faculty and graduate teaching assistants.

Mary first heard of Professor Hu’s case from Jamie Satterfield’s report in the local newspaper, Knox News. People started posting many messages and questions in the AAUP listserv – What is going on? What happened? Is AAUP looking into this? What is the administration doing? People were upset and confused.

Although the case comes down to simple injustice, trying to figure out what happened through reading was a challenge.

Professor McAlpin provided a summary of three primary concerns.

First was the FBI investigation and how it seemed to be a travesty of justice, which was also what the judge concluded.

Second was UTK’s role in this investigation, which was also covered by Jamie Satterfield. One of her articles went into details about how the UTK administration responded to this case. The university is a giant bureaucratic entity, and it protects itself. When an FBI agent comes calling, the university is not there to help or protect the employee. This has happened several times over the course of Professor McAlpin’s career, but it was never in such an egregious and shocking fashion as in Professor Hu’s case.

Third was the government's targeting of international faculty. They are particularly vulnerable to losing their employment at UTK which was what happened with Professor Hu. There are many international faculty members working at UTK. Many of Professor McAlpin’s colleagues in the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures at UTK are on green cards or H1 visas.

The international faculty members were probably following this situation very closely, but not speaking out the way that Mary believed she could as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. and possessing tenure. Mary also said that she was closer to the end than the beginning of her career. As President of AAUP/UTK, she was also speaking for those who might be afraid to speak up, particularly employees who were not citizens at UTK.

When the acquittal of Professor Hu came through, Mary and her colleagues were thrilled to hear the news. AAUP/UTK sent an email to UTK Provost John Zomchick, hoping that Professor Hu would be reinstated with back pay and perhaps for emotional and other damages.

That was not what happened. Apparently, the university is expecting Professor Hu to demonstrate proof that he was able to work in the U.S. before they would rehire him.

The UTK Faculty Senate was leading on this case and trying to figure out what exactly was going on with the reinstatement and the legal issues involved. While Professor McAlpin could not speak to the legality of what happened, the Provost has said that in every case and every situation surrounding this case, the UTK administration followed both the letter and the spirit of the faculty handbook.

Even if the letter was followed, Professor McAlpin was not sure the spirit of the faculty handbook was followed in this case.

From what Professor McAlpin could piece together, Professor Hu was indicted by the federal government. At that point the UTK administration put Professor Hu first on paid and then on unpaid suspension. According to the faculty handbook, the UT administration did not have to put Profdssor. Hu on unpaid suspension.

For example, he could have been reassigned to another job unrelated to the indictment that was in play. It was a choice made to put Professor Hu on unpaid leave. Then, because Professor Hu was on unpaid leave, he no longer qualified for the H1B visa, with which he was working and at which point they fired Professor Hu not for cause, but because he did not have an H1B visa, which he did not have because they suspended him without pay, which they did not have to do.

Mary observed that UTK basically triggered their own ability to fire Professor Hu because they probably did not want to deal with the legal fallout of the indictment.

From what Mary understood at that time, Provost Zomchick was saying that UTK would rehire Professor Hu but he had to prove that he was eligible to work in the U.S., which would mean having a visa, which was lost precisely because the UTK administration suspended him.

This is a catch-22 Kafka situation. The faculty members at UTK and perhaps the Faculty Senate were not going to stop pushing on this issue. This is a clear travesty of justice, and it had been continued unfortunately at the level of the university even after the acquittal of Professor Hu.

The Role of UTK

APA Justice constructed a timeline on the chronological events at UTK. [subject to review and confirmation by Professor Hu.]

In March 2018, about nine months before the launch of the China Initiative, the FBI opened an economic espionage investigation on Professor Hu. FBI and Department of Energy (DOE) made at least four presentations to UTK officials prior to the indictment of Professor Hu.

After a mistrial was declared, Knox News published How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist on July 29, 2021, raising a detailed list of questions about the university’s treatment of Professor Hu.

"The trial also revealed that UT administrators handed over documents from Hu’s university files without a warrant, concealed the federal investigation from him, misled NASA at the behest of a federal agent, set Hu up for his eventual arrest and fired him as soon as he was in handcuffs... It’s still not clear who at UT authorized meetings in 2018 between Hu’s bosses and federal agents or why. Chancellor Beverly Davenport was fired in July 2018 after a tumultuous tenure of less than 19 months, and System President Joe DiPietro announced his resignation two months later... The agents, testimony has revealed, didn’t have any proof of wrongdoing by Hu when they first walked onto UT’s campus and, therefore, no legal authority to take records from his personnel files," Knox News reported.

On August 4, 2021, UTK Provost John Zomchick issued a message to the UTK faculty, responding to UTK Faculty Senate President Lou Gross' questions regarding the faculty rights of Professor Hu. President Gross posted his questions and notes under "Faculty Member Suspension Issue" on his web page at https://bit.ly/3Cr67F1.

Citing that the university administration followed the letter and spirit of the Faculty Handbook at every stage, Provost Zomchick provided a timeline of administrative actions taken regarding Professor Hu’s tenured faculty appointment from suspension on February 25, 2020, to termination on October 8, 2020.

There were three versions of the Faculty Handbook online: 2016, 2019, and 2021.

The handbook says the Faculty Senate President should be consulted when the administration is considering suspending a tenured faculty member.

"That did not really happen," said Dr. Gross. "The then-faculty senate president was simply informed."

"I have made it clear, and our current provost has agreed, what consultation means," Dr. Gross told Knox News. "Consultation means that there will be time to actually look at the details of a particular situation and provide meaningful input from the faculty senate president."

One day after Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges, on September 10, 2021, UTK Chancellor Dr. Donde Plowman informed Dr. Gross and Dr. Beauvais Lyons, Faculty Representative on the UTK Advisory Board, that if Professor Hu "is able to verify authorization to work in the United States in the next year, the administrative termination will be reversed, and his faculty appointment will be reinstated with expectations in place around disclosures and outside interests."

In response, Dr. Gross expressed concern that Dr. Plowman's letter was inconsistent with the UTK Faculty Handbook, which states that "full restitution of salary, academic position and tenure lost during the suspension without pay will be made." Dr. Gross also described an apparent catch-22 situation "because Professor Hu lost his work authorization due to UTK action so it is not clear that he can possibly re-attain work authorization without first having his position and employment here restored."

In his separate response, Dr. Lyons urged UTK to take steps to reinstate Professor Hu to his faculty position. "This is not only about doing what is right, but damage control for our institutional reputation," he wrote. On September 13, 2021, Dr. Lyons and the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee which he chaired sent a memorandum including a set of 10 questions for UTK Provost Dr. John Zomchick to address at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting.

The UTK Senate Faculty held a public meeting on September 20, 2021.

UTK faculty were also concerned with the lack of notice that Professor Hu received about the investigation. UTK administrators gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office documents from Professor Hu’s university files without a warrant, and they were not obligated to notify Hu.

“In a world of data privacy, this is a great concern to everyone," Dr. Gross said.

UTK faculty members were also upset with the lack of public support the university showed Professor Hu. According to the memo from the faculty affairs committee to the provost, the university did not make a statement specifically in support of Chinese and Chinese American communities.

On October 14, 2021, Dr. Zomchick offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory.

Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated

On July 29, 2022, the White House announced the nomination of Casey T. Arrowood to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Arrowood led the prosecution of Professor Hu.

“This is ridiculous,” Professor Hu said of the Arrowood nomination In an interview in August 2022. “This is the worst presidential nomination ever. I am shocked at this news.” Professor Hu said President Joe Biden should rescind the nomination and, if not, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary should reject Arrowood as a candidate for the post.

“My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.”

After the story was published, a slew of advocacy groups, including APA Justice, Asian American Scholar Forum, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and United Chinese Americans, teamed up with Professor Hu to defeat Arrowood’s nomination.

“The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant and scientific communities,” the groups stated in a letter-writing campaign notice. “It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from the targeting and fallout before and during the ‘China Initiative.’”

“Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system,” the letter stated. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust.

“His unjust prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation,” the letter continued. “In summary, Mr. Arrowood’s track record does not meet the high requirements and expectations for a U.S. Attorney. We strongly support Professor Hu’s request for the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be the next U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the Arrowood nomination when the Senate session ended in January 2023. The White House did not renominate Arrowood.