#402 NSF to Ban Most Research with China; National APA Museum; More ICE Shootings; +

In This Issue #402

·      NSF Moves to Ban Nearly All Research Collaborations With China

·      National APA Museum Commission Opens Comments as Trump Administration Report Defends Chinese Exclusion Act

·      ICE Shootings Mount as Trump Undercuts Reported DHS Vehicle-Stop Pause

·      News and Activities for the Communities

NSF Moves to Ban Nearly All Research Collaborations With China

Over the past several months, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has undergone the most significant governance disruption in its 76-year history — a dismantling of independent oversight that coincided with one of the most sweeping policy shifts in the agency's history: a near-total ban on research collaborations with China.

Trump Fired the Entire National Science Board

It started on April 24, 2026, when President Trump fired all 22 sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB) — the independent body that has jointly overseen NSF alongside its director since the agency's founding in 1950. Members received a terse email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office informing them their positions were "terminated, effective immediately," with no explanation given.

The NSB's staggered six-year terms were specifically designed to insulate science funding decisions from short-term political pressure. Dismissed member Keivan Stassun (Vanderbilt) suggested the board's public criticism of Trump's proposed 55% NSF budget cut in May 2025 may have "antagonized the administration." Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the House Science Committee's ranking Democrat, called the firing "the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science," and later led 31 House Democrats in a letter demanding the board's reinstatement.

The move left NSF without both a board and a permanent director — Sethuraman Panchanathan had resigned in April 2025, and Trump's nominee to replace him, Jim O'Neill, still has not been confirmed by the Senate. As of late May 2026, the American Association for the Advancement of Science was still publicly pressing the Senate HELP Committee for an open confirmation hearing, and no replacements for the 22 dismissed NSB seats had been announced. With no confirmed director and no board, day-to-day authority has fallen to career staff: Brian Stone as acting director, and Rebecca Spyke Keiser — NSF's chief of research security — as acting chief of staff.

A Sweeping New China Policy Emerged

It is against this backdrop of leadership vacancies — an agency with neither a confirmed director nor a seated independent board — that NSF announced a sweeping new policy in July prohibiting U.S. scientists it funds from collaborating with nearly all Chinese research institutions and their employees. The policy, first reported by Science on July 10, 2026, and covered by South China Morning Post on July 14, 2026, marks a major reversal from NSF's earlier approach of weighing risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

Under the new policy, NSF will bar interactions with employees of "restricted entities" — hundreds of major Chinese universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions identified on lists maintained by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Senior and key personnel on NSF awards will be prohibited from holding appointments at these institutions, receiving research support from them, or collaborating with them on NSF-funded work.

The move replaces NSF's "Trusted Research Using Safeguards and Transparency" (TRUST) framework, introduced in 2024 to assess national security risks in grant proposals while still allowing collaboration to continue. At the time, Keiser — then NSF's chief of research security, now its acting chief of staff — argued that "we cannot continue to lead the world in science and innovation if we are fixated on achieving zero risk." That balancing act now appears to be over, at least with respect to China and other countries deemed national security threats: NSF's new guidance states plainly that "research security risk mitigation for NSF-funded projects involving these restricted entities is not sufficient."

It is not publicly known whether the now-vacant National Science Board would have reviewed or weighed in on a policy of this scope had it still been seated — the board's precise role in this type of decision has not been reported. What is clear is that the policy was finalized during a period when NSF's normal channels of independent, external review were unusually thin.

The shift also brings NSF in line with the Department of Defense, which tightened its own research security rules in January 2026, following a 2025 investigation by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party that found roughly 1,400 research papers published between June 2023 and June 2025 involved collaboration with Chinese entities — more than half of them affiliated with China's defense research and industrial base.

A Pending Broader OMB Rule

The restricted-entity list is not comprehensive. Tsinghua University, for instance, is not currently included — despite recently hiring away 2025 Nobel Chemistry laureate Omar Yaghi from UC Berkeley. A broader rule proposed separately by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would bar collaboration with entire "countries of concern," including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, rather than relying on institution-by-institution lists.

Political and Diplomatic Reaction

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, praised the policy as "commendable and commonsense," saying it "will protect taxpayer-funded research and innovation," and called on other federal agencies to follow the Pentagon and NSF's lead.

China's government pushed back. Liu Chang, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said U.S.-China science and technology cooperation is "inherently mutually beneficial" and urged American institutions to promote rather than restrict such exchanges.

Some U.S. scientists are similarly critical. Stanford physicist Peter Michelson, who last year organized a faculty petition against similar restrictions Moolenaar tried to insert into defense policy legislation, called the NSF policy "very damaging" to U.S. science. China policy expert Denis Simon, former executive vice chancellor of Duke Kunshan University, warned that the policy hands Moolenaar "an open playing field to put anybody on the [banned] list."

Open Questions

Much remains undefined, including what actually counts as a "collaboration." It is unclear whether the ban extends to casual conversations at conferences or to co-authored papers where researchers worked independently. NIH and NASA appear to already be restricting co-authorship with foreign scientists under similar reasoning, and Kevin Wozniak of the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) notes that NIH treats co-authorship as "a factor" — though not necessarily proof — of prohibited collaboration.

What is Next

NSF is accepting public comments on the policy and plans to finalize it in updated grantee instructions taking effect October 1, 2026 — the start of federal fiscal year 2027, when NSF says the policy will be fully implemented. Keiser and counterparts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science are scheduled to testify before Moolenaar's committee on July 15, 2026. Observers, including Simon, say they do not expect the hearing or public feedback to meaningfully alter the policy's course. Whether an eventually reconstituted National Science Board — or a confirmed director — will have any opportunity to revisit the policy remains an open question.

National APA Museum Commission Opens Comments as Trump Administration Report Defends Chinese Exclusion Act

The National Asian Pacific American Museum Commission is conducting a series of virtual information sessions to gather public input on the creation of a future national museum. These sessions are designed to engage the community, hear feedback, and discuss what a future museum could look like. They include Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Community Leaders, South Asian Community Leaders, and Students and Youth sessions.

The Commission also encourages you to share your voice by submitting a public comment. Every story, perspective, and experience matters. Together, our voices can help ensure that the many histories, cultures, and contributions of Asian Pacific Americans are recognized and reflected in this important national effort.

The Commission’s link to submit a public comment is located here: https://bit.ly/4gJhVct. Please submit your comment by July 31, 2026.

The bipartisan Commission, established by Congress in 2022 (Public Law 117-140) and formally launched in June 2025, is completing its nationwide tour. It is entering its final stretch toward an October 2026 report to Congress and the President, which will lay out a comprehensive plan for establishing, funding, and maintaining the museum, including site selection and projected costs.

Trump Administration Report Defends the Chinese Exclusion Act

Separately, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a report on July 4 titled Saving America's Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage. The report is sharply critical of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, accusing it of portraying American history through a lens of "White supremacy, slavery, conquest, exclusion, hierarchy, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and systemic injustice."

Notably, the report specifically defends the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — the first U.S. law to bar immigration based explicitly on race — against the museum's characterization that the law was racially motivated, criticizing the exhibit's accompanying text for portraying restrictive immigration laws as "a tool of White supremacy." The report emerged from an executive order Trump signed earlier in his term, which had already led to a broader review of Smithsonian exhibitions and operations.

According to NPR on July 9, 2026, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch defended the institution's integrity in a memo to staff, emphasizing a commitment to "scholarship, nonpartisanship, independence, accuracy and integrity" in telling the fullness of America's story.

The response from Asian American advocates has been swift and critical. Eunice Kwon of the Asian American Research Center at UC Berkeley called the report "a step backwards," noting that Congress formally and unanimously expressed regret for the Chinese Exclusion Act through House and Senate resolutions passed unanimously in 2011 and 2012. Kwon said the administration's effort to recast the law "as an economic dispute" while erasing the racial hostility and violence Chinese immigrants actually faced "is dangerous for our communities."

Why This Matters Together

Both developments intersect at a pivotal moment for how Asian Pacific American history is told at the federal level: as the Commission works to build the case for a dedicated national museum grounded in authentic, full storytelling — including the difficult chapters — the administration's Smithsonian report suggests a starkly different vision for how federally supported institutions should present that same history.

ICE Shootings Mount as Trump Undercuts Reported DHS Vehicle-Stop Pause

According to multiple media reports including AP News, Forbes, New York Times, TIME, and Washington Post, three men have died during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) encounters in just over a week — in Houston, Biddeford, Maine, and now Florida — even as President Donald Trump publicly contradicted reports that the agency had moved to suspend most vehicle stops, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s own account of events has shifted since. Separately, Minnesota prosecutors report a breakthrough in their long-stalled investigations into the January killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

What Happened This Month

On July 7, an ICE officer fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national who had lived in the U.S. for decades, as he drove his construction crew to a Houston job site. DHS said the officer opened fire after Salgado Araujo ignored commands and attempted to ram the officer with his vehicle, but at least two of the passengers in the van have disputed the federal agency's account through their attorney. Former Houston city councilmember Robert Gallegos said Salgado Araujo was "racially profiled" — a man who had raised three sons and run his own homebuilding business.

Less than a week later, on July 13, an ICE agent shot and killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, after officers tried to stop a vehicle he was driving in Biddeford, Maine. DHS said the officer, "fearing for public safety," fired after Durán Guerrero attempted to flee in the vehicle. But that account shifted from what Sen. Angus King's office initially relayed: King said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin first told him the officer opened fire because the driver tried to "use his vehicle as a weapon" — a materially different justification than "attempted to flee." King also said Mullin told him officers were serving an arrest warrant, but not for Durán Guerrero himself. Advocacy groups say Durán Guerrero had a wife and young daughter and was authorized to work in the U.S. Neither shooting involved agents wearing body cameras, despite then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's February pledge to "rapidly" deploy body cameras nationwide — a rollout that, per DHS, has now reached only about half of ICE field offices.

Then on July 14, a third man died during an immigration encounter: a 28-year-old was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer in Florida while fleeing immigration and other federal officers.

A Washington Post analysis published July 15 found that at least 17 motorists have been shot during immigration operations since the administration's enforcement ramp-up began — a scale considerably larger than the small number of high-profile cases that have drawn national attention. Separately, John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director during the Obama administration, estimated roughly 18 traffic-stop shootings during the crackdown to date — a similar, independently-arrived-at figure.

Trump Contradicts the Vehicle-Stop Pause — DHS Then Falls in Line

Following the Houston and Maine shootings, ICE reportedly moved to suspend most vehicle stops — a change confirmed on the record when Sen. King's office said DHS itself had told them ICE was suspending traffic stops. But President Trump publicly contradicted that plan just a day later. In a social media post on July 15, Trump said ICE agents are "doing a GREAT job, one that has to be done," and insisted the agency must keep conducting stops to remove people he says were let into the country under the previous administration: "We CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!" Ending the practice, he wrote, would mean "playing right into the criminal's hands."

Hours after Trump's post, DHS Secretary Mullin issued his own statement affirming that people in the country illegally would be "arrested and deported" — a response that, rather than clarifying the contradiction, appeared to align the department with Trump's position. As of this writing, it remains unclear whether ICE will formally reverse the suspension and resume most stops, or how the agency intends to reconcile Trump's public statement with the pause it reportedly ordered just a day earlier.

Policing experts have long warned that shooting into moving vehicles is inherently dangerous and should almost always be avoided — a pattern critics say has repeated across these incidents, with officers confronting drivers and then citing the vehicle itself as the justification for using force. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said on July 14 she had urged Mullin "to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops," though she also cautioned on X that "it is important to remember that the work ICE does to protect our country goes far beyond immigration enforcement." Collins faces a competitive reelection race in Maine, where hundreds of protesters gathered at her office this week over the Durán Guerrero shooting.

Separately, internal dissent has surfaced within ICE itself: senior officials have reportedly blamed Trump's demand for mass arrests for the wave of deadly shootings, with one official warning that officers "pushed to the breaking point" are being forced into fatal confrontations. The killings came days after Trump ordered an arrest surge that swept up more than 10,000 people in five days, with field leadership reportedly told the White House expected 2,000 detentions daily. ICE has said it faces growing resistance to home arrests, as advisers increasingly tell immigrants to stay inside unless agents produce a judicial warrant — a dynamic the agency says pushes officers toward other tactics, including vehicle stops.

The Political Stakes

The shootings arrive at a politically sensitive moment for the administration. Trump's approval rating on immigration recovered from 38% in February — in the wake of the Good and Pretti killings in Minneapolis — to 42% in June, according to Quinnipiac University polling, even as his overall approval sits at 38%. Immigration remains a relative strength for Trump compared to other issues, but the pattern of shootings has become a flashpoint in competitive races, including Collins's in Maine and several Democratic primaries where candidates are divided over how aggressively to respond.

Minnesota Follow-Up: Evidence Turnover in the Good and Pretti Cases

Separately, Minnesota prosecutors announced a long-sought breakthrough: the Trump administration turned over evidence long sought by state investigators, including previously withheld hard drives containing statements and body-camera video, as well as Good's badly damaged SUV. Lawyers for Good's family called the transfer "an important and meaningful step towards justice and accountability."

Despite the handover, no criminal charges have been filed against the federal agents who shot and killed Good and Pretti. The two Customs and Border Protection officers who killed Pretti were placed on administrative leave shortly after the shooting, but no indictment or known disciplinary action has followed against them or against Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot Good.

What's Next

Investigations remain ongoing in Houston, Biddeford, Florida, and the two Minneapolis cases, with state and federal authorities continuing to clash over jurisdiction and evidence access. Salgado Araujo's killing marked at least the 21st shooting by immigration agents since Trump's mass deportation campaign began in January 2025, according to the New York Times, as reported by Forbes — underscoring that these incidents form part of a broader, ongoing pattern rather than isolated events.

Whether the vehicle-stop pause survives Trump's public pushback, and how DHS intends to reconcile its own reported suspension with the president's explicit demand to continue stops, remains unresolved. This continues to be a fast-developing story with a pattern of shifting federal accounts — DHS's description of the Maine shooting alone has changed at least twice, from "weaponized" to "attempted to flee," even as the administration now appears to be walking back the policy response to the shootings themselves. Readers should expect further developments as investigations proceed.

News and Activities for the Communities

1. APA Justice Community Calendar

Upcoming Events:

2026/08/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting

2026/08/05 C100: The Impact of AI on Asian American Careers in Technology

2026/08/07-09 AASF: Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony

2026/08/26 C100: An Advice and Networking Event (Technology)Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details.

# # # 

APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community.  For more information, please refer to the APA Justice website at www.apajusticetaskforce.org. We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org.