Birthright Citizenship WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME Go Go Prev Next Table of Contents What is Birthright Citizenship? Donald Trump Executive Order Why Protect Birthright Citizenship? Timeline Visualization Historical Context Related Media Legal Battles Summary What is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. In the United States, it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution , which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Back to Table of Contents Donald Trump Executive Order On January 20, 2025 Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160 seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Read the executive order here . Threats to Birthright Citizenship Executive Actions : Attempts to redefine or restrict citizenship via executive orders. Legislative Proposals : Bills challenging the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Misinformation : Campaigns framing birthright citizenship as a "loophole" or "anchor baby" issue. Court Challenges : Lawsuits aiming to reinterpret the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment. Back to Table of Contents Why Protect Birthright Citizenship? Legal Foundation : It upholds the principles of equality and inclusion. Stability : Ensures clarity in citizenship rights and avoids creating stateless individuals. Economic Contributions : Children born as citizens contribute to the nation’s workforce, innovation, and economy. Human Rights : Aligns with international norms discouraging discrimination based on ancestry or immigration status. How to Protect Birthright Citizenship Advocacy : Support organizations fighting to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., ACLU, JACL, Asian Americans Advancing Justice). Engage in grassroots campaigns to raise awareness. Education : Inform communities about the 14th Amendment and its protections. Share historical examples, such as Wong Kim Ark's case and Japanese American Internment, to highlight the consequences of eroding citizenship rights. Legislation : Advocate for laws that reaffirm birthright citizenship and oppose restrictive measures. Support elected officials who prioritize protecting constitutional rights. Judicial Defense : Monitor legal challenges and support amicus briefs defending birthright citizenship. Fund and back litigation efforts to uphold the 14th Amendment. Community Action : Build coalitions with diverse groups affected by immigration and citizenship issues. Amplify personal stories to humanize the issue and dispel negative stereotypes. Key Talking Points Constitutional Mandate : Birthright citizenship is a core constitutional right, upheld by over a century of legal precedent, including the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision. Historical Lessons : The Wong Kim Ark case and Japanese American Internment remind us of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of protecting citizenship rights. American Values : Birthright citizenship reflects principles of fairness, equality, and the immigrant roots of the U.S. Economic Impact : Policies undermining birthright citizenship harm economic growth and social cohesion. Back to Table of Contents Timeline Visualization Source: https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/2139841/Birthright-Citizenship/ Back to Table of Contents Historical Context 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 The first Act to define parameters for citizenship by naturalization, this Act limited naturalization to white, male property owners who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years, setting an early precedent for exclusive definitions of American citizenship. Resources https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/h-r-40-naturalization-bill-march-4-1790 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom, arguing that his past residence in free territories made him a free man. The Supreme Court ruled that, because Scott was of African descent, he could not be considered an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. This landmark case resulted in the denial of citizenship from all individuals of African descent in the United States and entrenched the idea that American citizenship was linked to race. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html 1868: Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws” in an attempt to address the grievances established in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments adopted during Reconstruction following the Civil War. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/it-was-today-congress-approved-the-14th-amendment 1868: Burlingame Treaty Signed six years after authorization for construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, this agreement secured U.S. access to Chinese laborers, granting Chinese free immigration and travel within the U.S. and granting China most favored nation status in trade. This treaty was reversed by the Angell Treaty in 1868. Resources https://immigrationhistory.org/item/burlingame-treaty-of-1868/ https://immigrationhistory.org/item/angell-treaty-of-1880/ 1875: Page Act In writing, this Act prohibited the "importation of women for the purposes of prostitution" and the recruitment of laborers from Asia who were not brought to the U.S. of their own volition. In practice, this law prevented Chinese women from migrating to the U.S., essentially requiring Chinese men to leave the U.S. if they wished to get married. The Page Act was repealed in 1974.\ Resources https://www.history.com/articles/chinese-immigration-page-act-women 1882: Chinese Exclusion Act and Chinese Immigration The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years, the first act of its kind to place broad restrictions on immigration. The Act served as a response to growing anti-China sentiment in the U.S., particularly from other workers in the American economy who felt they faced increased job competition. In 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act, forbidding reentry into the U.S. after a visit to China. The Geary Act of 1892 extended Chinese exclusion for another 10 years and incorporated Hawaii and the Philippines. In 1943, Congress repealed the exclusion acts, two years after China joined the Allied Nations during World War II. Only in 2011 did Congress officially condemn the Chinese Exclusion Act with the unanimous passing of Senate Resolution 201 and House Resolution 683. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act#:~:text=In%20the%20spring%20of%201882,immigrating%20to%20the%20United%20States https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration 1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins In this case, the court determined that Chinese immigrants, though not citizens of the U.S., were still entitled to equal protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Resources https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/118us356 1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip abroad, as officials argued he was not a citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship. This landmark case cemented the principle of birthright citizenship and set a crucial precedent for defending the rights of children born to immigrants. Resources https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-look-back-at-the-wong-kim-ark-decision https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark 1906: The Naturalization Act of 1906 This Act required all immigrants to learn English in order to become naturalized citizens. Resources https://www.nvlchawaii.org/limits-japanese-immigration-us-enters-wwi/ 1922: Ozawa v. United States Takao Ozawa, a Japanese man who moved to the U.S. for college and began a family in Hawaii, applied for citizenship and was rejected due to his race, despite meeting all non-racial qualifications. This landmark decision determined all Issei ineligible for citizenship, reinforcing racial barriers to citizenship and solidifying the exclusion of Asian immigrants from naturalization. Resources https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Ozawa_v._United_States https://www.nvlchawaii.org/limits-japanese-immigration-us-enters-wwi/ 1924: Immigration Act of 1924 This act established a national origins quota in order to severely restrict the number of immigrants entering the U.S. The quota provided immigration visas to two-percent of the total number of people of existing nationalities in the U.S but also included natural-born citizens, so the number of people allowed from the British Isles and Western Europe was higher than elsewhere. The act also prohibited immigration from those countries who were already ineligible for citizenship in the U.S. Since all people of Asian lineage were prohibited from naturalizing, this meant that even those who could immigrate but not naturalize, such as the Japanese, could now not do either. The act also severely restricted the number of European Jews and refugees fleeing fascism and the Holocaust. Although this violated the Gentlemen’s Agreement, the U.S. government remained firm. Resources https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/1924-us-immigration-act-history 1924: Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote was still governed by state law, leaving some Native Americans unable to vote until 1957. Resources https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/ 1925: Chang Chan v. Nagle Under the Immigration Act of 1924, the Supreme Court determined that Chinese women were ineligible for citizenship and thus could not qualify as non-quota immigrants to the U.S., due to their Chinese descent. Thus, Chinese wives of American citizens were not allowed entry into the U.S. Resources https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/346/ 1942: Japanese Internment During World War II, over 120,000 Japanese Americans – two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens by birth – were forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated without due process. This demonstrated how prejudice can undermine constitutional rights. Only in 1988 did Congress and President Reagan sign the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 expressing regret for the injustice of internment and offering $20,000 to each incarcerated individual. Resources https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation 1952: McCarran-Walter Act This act continued the controversial quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924. While the act finally allowed universal Asian immigration and naturalization, the quota system ensured that eighty-five percent of annually available visas were allotted to people of northern and western European heritage. Resources https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/Brief21%20-%20McCarran-Walter.pdf 1982: Plyler v. Doe A Texas education law allowed the state to deny funding for educating children of non-citizens. The Supreme Court struck down this law, ruling that non-citizens and their children were afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections under the Equal Protection Clause. Resources https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/ https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/access-education-rule-law Back to Table of Contents Related Media 2025/05/09 San Francisco Bay Times: Standing Up for Birthright Citizenship: A Personal Reflection 2025/04/11 AALDEF: With 80+ Asian American organizations and race and law centers, AALDEF submits brief in support of birthright citizenship 2025/04/09 NAPABA: NAPABA Leads Broad Coalition to Defend Birthright Citizenship in Court 2025/03/28 Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok in Just Security (translation by Juan Zhang) - 特朗普政府重塑《第十四修正案》 ——《黄金德案》并未限制出生公民权 2025/03/28 Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok in Just Security - The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship 2025/03/28 CAPAC press release: CAPAC Chair Meng Statement on the Anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark Decision 2025/01/24 PBS: What to know about the legal battle over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship 2025/01/23 New York Times: “Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship” 2025/01/23 ABC News: “What to Make of Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship” 2025/03/31 Senator Tim Kaine Letter 2018/11/01 Pew Research Center. “Number of U.S.-Born Babies with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents Has Fallen Since 2007” 2018/01/11 Congressional Research Service: The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview 1898/03/28 Justia: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 1868/07/09 National Archives: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) Japanese American Citizens League: The Japanese American Experience Chinese Historical Society of New England. Exclusion Acts and Legal Resistance Global Birthright Citizenship Laws Law Library of Congress. “Birthright Citizenship Conditions.” More info here . Global Birthright Citizenship Laws Back to Table of Contents Legal Battles On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order seeking to strip certain babies born in the United States of their U.S. citizenship. The following lawsuits have been filed to stop the implementation of the executive order. 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiffs: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York Legal Team: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund 2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136) U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiffs: Jane Doe and others Legal Team: Lawyers for Civil Rights 3. Thien Le v. Donald J. Trump (8:25-cv-00104) U.S. District Court for the Central District of California File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiff: Thien Le Legal Team: TFC Legal Services & Associates 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: State of Washington, along with Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: the State of New Jersey, along with 17 other states, San Francisco, Washington DC. At least 72 jurisdictions across 24 states have joined the legal challenge 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and individual plaintiffs Maribel, Juana, Trinidad Garcia, Monica, and Liza Legal Team: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, 7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163) - merged into 4 on 2025/01/27 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington File Date: January 24, 2025 Date Terminated: January 27, 2025 Plaintiffs: Class action led by Cherly Norales Castillo, Alicia Chavarria Lopez, and Delmy Franco Aleman Legal Team: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (Seattle) 8. OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (1:25-cv-00287) U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia File Date: January 30, 2025 Plaintiff: OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates Legal Team: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC 9. County of Santa Clara v. Trump (5:25-cv-00981) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California File Date: January 30, 2025 Plaintiff: County of Santa Clara New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. (1:25-cv-01309) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York File Date: February 13, 2025 Plaintiff: J.V. and New York Immigration Coalition Barbara v. Trump (1:25-cv-00244) U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire File Date: June 27, 2025 Plaintiff: Barbara, Immigration Law Reform Institute, Mark, Matthew, Sarah, Susan Legal Team: ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, NAACP Legal and Defense Education Fund, State Democracy Defenders Action Major Developments 2025/07/16 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) Judge Boardman issued a memorandum opinion and an indicative ruling granting a class-wide injunction pending the district court acquiring jurisdiction on remand from the Fourth Circuit where this part of the litigation is still on appeal. 2025/07/10 11. Barbara v. Trump (1:25-cv-00244) Judge Laplante granted a seven-day classwide injunction preventing the administration from enforcing Executive Order 14160. 2025/07/10 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued an injunction blocking Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, ruling that the Plaintiffs could proceed as a class. 2025/07/03 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The FIrst CIrcuit denied the government’s request for a supplementary briefing on the state of the preliminary injunction granted previously and remanded the case to the lower court to consider whether Trump v. CASA impacts the court’s preliminary injunction. 2025/07/02 10. New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. (1:25-cv-01309) Plaintiffs submitted a letter indicating that they would amend their complaint following the Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2025. 2025/07/01 8. OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (1:25-cv-00287) OCA filed an amended complaint which included several co-complaintant prospective mothers proceeding anonymously and which updated the complaint with statements and actions taken by the Trump administration since the initial complaint was filed. On July 2, the OCA moved for partial summary judgement to declare the EO unconstitutional and to enjoin the administration from carrying it out. 2025/06/27 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which included additional plaintiffs and removed President Donald Trump as a defendant while adding the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) as a defendant. 2025/06/27 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to partially stay a lower court injunction against Executive Order 14160. The ruling limits the injunction’s scope to only the litigants in the case, but left open whether broader relief might be permitted in class actions. 2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) 208 House Democrats filed amicus brief against Trump birthright citizenship executive order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 25-807 2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) AALDEF and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807 2025/04/09 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) NAPABA and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807 2025/04/04 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A886 2025/04/04 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A885 2025/04/04 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) The plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A884. 2025/03/13 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction. 2025/03/13 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction. 2025/03/11 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for a stay. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. 2025/02/19 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the government’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction and leaving the existing briefing schedule unchanged. 2025/02/13 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160. 2025/02/13 2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136) Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160. 2025/02/10 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction . 2025/02/05 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) U.S. District Court Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary nationwide injunction until the case is resolved or a higher court overturns it. 2025/01/27 7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163) This case was terminated and consolidated into 3. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) 2025/01/23 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order, halting the enforcement of the executive order for 14 days. He described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional," emphasizing its immediate and irreparable harm to individuals affected. Back to Table of Contents Summary The legal victory of Wong Kim Ark and the struggles of Japanese Americans during internment illustrate the enduring importance of protecting birthright citizenship. Defending this right ensures the United States remains a nation of equality and justice. Let’s learn from history, honor constitutional principles, and secure a future where all are treated with dignity and fairness. Back to Table of Contents Timeline Contents Birthright Citizenship Select Title

Item One Info Info Item One Info Info Item One Info Info Item One Info Info < < 1 1 1 Sort by Sort by Showing 1-10 of 100 results Clear Search > Clear filters Filter by Type Newsletter Meeting Summary Article Filter by Issue Alien Land Bills China Initiative COVID-19 Warrantless Surveillance Resource Library Explore all of APA Justice's curated content. To view newsletters from before 2023, visit the archive here .

Attempts to Revive China Initiative Return to The China Initiative or Racial Profiling Table of Contents 2022/03/17 Community Town Hall: The End of The "China Initiative" 2025/01/30 Senator Jim Risch: Every Chinese Student is An Agent of the CCP 2025/02/21 Reintroduction of Bills to Reinstate China Initiative 2025/03/12 Webinar: The China Initiative: Policy, Practice, and the Asian American Critique 2025/03/21 Webinar: Fighting Racial Profiling and The Criminalization of Academia in North America 2025/04/08 Visa Terminations, Trump Reversal, and New ICE Policy Continuing Developments 2022/03/17 Community Town Hall: The End of The "China Initiative" Although it was announced by the Department of Justice that the China Initiative ended on February 23, 2022, there have been continuing attempts to revive it. On March 17, 2022, a Community Town Hall was held to discuss the end of the China Initiative. The open forum was not recorded. APA Justice issued a statement that said in part: “Ending the “China Initiative” is a promising start to correct the harms caused by the initiative, apply lessons learned, and rebuild community trust and confidence that were lost in our law enforcement and judicial system. “But we emphasize that this is just a start. “We, like many other organizations and individuals, have broad concerns that the end of the initiative is just in name but does not reflect a change in fact and substance.” Return to Table of Contents 2025/01/30 Senator Jim Risch: Every Chinese Student is An Agent of the CCP During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30, 2025, Committee Chair Senator Jim Risch made statement that “each [Chinese student], whether they like it or not, is an agent of the Chinese Communist Party.” References and Links 2025/01/31 Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Risch Questions Witnesses at Hearing on the Malign Influence of China Return to Table of Contents 2025/02/21 Reintroduction of Bills to Reinstate China Initiative On February 21, 2025, Senator Rick Scott announced the reintroduction of his Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act to reinstate and codify President Trump’s CCP Initiative under the Department of Justice (DOJ). On the same day, Rep. Lance Gooden reintroduced a companion bill in the House. References and Links 2025/02/21 Senator Rick Scott: Sen. Rick Scott Announces Bill to Reinstate President Trump’s CCP Initiative 2025/02/21 Rep. Lance Gooden: Congressman Lance Gooden Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Combat CCP Espionage and Protect U.S. Innovation 2023/03/07 Congress.gov : H.R.1398 - Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024 (118th Congress) Return to Table of Contents 2025/03/12 Webinar: The China Initiative: Policy, Practice, and the Asian American Critique On March 12, 2025, Michigan State University's Asian Pacific American Studies Program hosted a webinar on the China Initiative, a Trump administration program that targeted Asian American scholars and researchers for investigation and prosecution. The event was moderated by Dr. Kent Weaver of Michigan State University. Professor Lok Siu of UC Berkeley and Dr. Jeremy Wu of APA Justice were featured speakers. A Q&A session followed after their presentation. References and Links 2025/03/12 Lok Siu (UC Berkeley): The Racial Profiling of AAPIs: Stereotyping Threat 2025/03/12 Jeremy Wu (APA Justice): China Initiative: Past and Present 中国行动的前世今生 Return to Table of Contents 2025/03/21 Webinar: Fighting Racial Profiling and The Criminalization of Academia in North America On March 21, 2025, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project at Simon Fraser University, Canada, invited Dr. Anming Hu for an event named Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America both in-person and online. This event was one of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project’s ongoing series of Academic Freedom, Anti-racial profiling and Labour Rights. The series is sponsored by the Labour Studies Program and the Simon Fraser University Morgan Centre for Labour Research, Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and Canada-China Focus (CCF). The purpose of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project is to engage and support researchers, scholars, as well as graduate students of Chinese descent and other minority groups to fight against racial profiling and defend academic freedom in the increasingly restrictive national security measures adopted by the Canadian government through its Named Research Organizations in Sensitive Technology Research Areas, and legalized control of academic freedom under the newly passed Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act. Through organizing open conversations, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project hopes to foster an inclusive and open academic environment. On the event, Dr. Hu shared his powerful story as the first academic wrongfully charged and went on trial under the China Initiative. He spoke about what he experienced, the impacts on his academic career, his life and his family. He speaks out against racial profiling, raising awareness of the dangers of overreach in national security measures targeting academia. Immediate impact of the event : As a Chinese Canadian, Dr. Anming Hu’s story was known to the Chinese Canadian academic community. The event attracted attention nationwide in Canada. Scholars in sensitive technology areas have wide fear of racial profiling and being wrongfully treated by their own government. Therefore, university professors, scholars and students participated widely. There were more than seventy attendees across North America. The participants addressed their concerns during the panel discussion. They consulted Dr. Hu with legal concerns, and what they should do to protect themselves. Dr. Hu responded with his own experience. Political impact : Beyond attracting academia attention, the event has also drawn interest from politicians. Senator Yuen Pau Woo participated in-person. He was concerned about whether the Canadian government provided adequate support to Dr. Hu when he encountered injustice. He asked whether the Canadian government took any action to help Dr. Hu during his investigation and trial. Did any Canadian diplomats, government agencies or parliamentarians stand up to support him. In addition, he also asked if a Canadian citizen encountered similar legal problems in China, would the Canadian government provide similar advice and support. Dr. Hu responded how the Canadian government instructed him to “follow US law” and provided no help. In comparison, Dr. Hu addressed how US congresswomen and congressmen provided assistance in his case. He hopes that the Canadian government will be more proactive in protecting its citizens in the future, especially when handling similar legal issues, and can act more forcefully and effectively. Social impact : A local Vancouver social activist Ally Wang participated the event in-person. The Stop Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Advocacy Group, which she co-founded, helped promote the event. She writes articles for Chinese language media. She has translated Dr. Anming Hu’s story into Chinese and will publish on a Chinese language magazine. In conclusion, the event raised attention to racial profiling against Chinese professors in the academy in both Canada and America. It called wide attention to academic independence and impartiality, firmly oppose political interference, and encourage everyone to actively participate in discussions among universities, policymakers and the public to jointly promote the construction of an inclusive and fair higher education environment. WHAT : Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America WHEN : March 21, 2025, 4:00 pm-6:30 pm PT/7:00 pm-9:30 pm ET WHERE : Hybrid event In Person: Room 7000, SFU Vancouver Harbor Centre Campus, 515 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Canada Webinar via Zoom HOST : Simon Fraser University, Labor Studies Program Moderator : Dr. Xinying Hu , Simon Fraser University Speaker : Dr. Anming Hu , University of Tennessee, Knoxville Discussants: Dr. Jane Wang , University of British Columbia Dr. Jie Yang , Simon Fraser University Return to Table of Contents The Case of Professor Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 Professor Xiaofeng Wang Xiaofeng Wang, a prominent cybersecurity professor at Indiana University Bloomington (IUB), was terminated on March 28, 2025—the same day FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents conducted searches at his homes in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. The university has not publicly disclosed the reasons for his dismissal. Professor Wang's wife, Nianli Ma—a systems analyst at the university—was also terminated on March 24, 2025. References and Links APA Justice Impacted Person: Xiaofeng Wang Return to Table of Contents 2025/04/08 Visa Terminations, Trump Reversal, and New ICE Policy Inside Higher Ed Tracker as of 2025/04/25 On January 29, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14188, which authorized the revocation of international student visas, targeting students involved in anti-Israel protests or those alleged to have violated laws during such demonstrations, particularly following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Revocation of student visas began to spread beyond the executive order as part of Trump's crackdown on immigration in early April 2025. On April 8, 2025, Inside Higher Ed began to track the revocation of F-1 or J-1 student status. As of April 25, 2025, over 280 colleges and universities have identified more than 1,800 international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed by the State Department. More than 100 lawsuits and dozens of restraining orders from federal judges challenged the Trump administration’s mass termination of student visa records. After 20 days of consistent legal defeats, the administration capitulated and reversed its decision on April 25, 2025. Notable lawsuits include Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) , filed April 11 in the Northern District of California by the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (华美维权同盟 CALDA) Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998) , filed April 11 in the Northern District of Georgia by CAIR-Georgia, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, and American Civil Liberties Union-Georgia. On April 29, Politico reported that the visa revocations were part of the "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," which involved running 1.3 million student names through a federal criminal database run by the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Approximately 6,400 matches were found, many of which were minor infractions or dismissed charges. Despite this, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used the data to terminate student records in the SEVIS tracking system. In parallel, the State Department revoked visas for roughly 3,000 individuals based on similar data, separate from the SEVIS terminations. Hundreds of the terminations, an ICE official who helped oversee the effort said, came less than 24 hours after an April 1 email exchange between his office and the State Department, with little sign of review of individual cases to ensure the decisions were accurate. The lack of due process became especially clear during an April 29 hearing on the case of Patel v. Lyons (1:25-cv-01096) before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, where ICE officials admitted that hundreds of terminations were made within 24 hours of receiving raw data—with little or no individual case review. “When the courts say due process is important, we’re not unhinged, we’re not radicals,” Judge Reyes said during an hourlong hearing. “I’m not on a lark questioning why students who have been here legally, who paid to be in this country by paying their universities … they’re cut off with less than 24 hours of consideration and no notice whatsoever." Akshar Patel brought the suit that led to the April 29 hearing. He is an international student from India who pursued undergraduate studies in computer science at the University of Texas at Arlington. He graduated prior to 2025 and has since been working in the computer science field in North Texas. HIs legal status in the U.S. was abruptly terminated after his name appeared in the ICE sweep of the NCIC database. He had faced a reckless driving charge in 2018 but it was ultimately dismissed. When colleges discovered the students no longer had legal status, it prompted chaos and confusion. In the past, legal statuses typically were updated after colleges told the government the students were no longer studying at the school. In some cases this spring, colleges told students to stop working or taking classes immediately and warned them they could be deported after the ICE sweep. According to AP News , NBC News , and multiple media reports on April 29, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which falls under ICE, shows an expanded list of criteria for ICE to terminate foreign-born students’ legal status in the U.S., including a “U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).” It was filed in court by the Justice Department on April 28 and dated April 26. Brad Banias , an immigration attorney who represents Patel, said the new guidelines vastly expand ICE’s authority beyond previous policy, which did not count visa revocation as grounds for losing legal status. In the past, if a student had their visa revoked, they could stay in the U.S. to finish their studies — they simply would not be able to reenter if they left the country. “This just gave them carte blanche to have the State Department revoke a visa and then deport those students even if they’ve done nothing wrong,” Banias said. On April 11, 2025, the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance 华美维权同盟 (CALDA) filed a lawsuit Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) on behalf of four Chinese students enrolled at UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, University of Cincinnati, and Columbia. References and Links Inside Higher Ed: International Student Visas Revoked CourtListener: Patel v. Lyons (1:25-cv-01096) CourtListener: Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) CourtListener: Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998) 2025/04/29 AP News: The US government has a new policy for terminating international students’ legal status 2025/04/29 NBC News: Visa revocations can now lead to legal status terminations, according to internal memo 2025/04/29 Politico: Feds reveal how immigration squad targeted thousands of foreign students 2025/04/25 Politico: Trump administration reverses abrupt terminations of foreign students’ US visa registrations 2025/04/22 AsAmNews: Indian and Chinese nationals top list of student visa revocations 2025/04/17 AILA: Policy Brief: The Scope of Immigration Enforcement Actions Against International Students 2025/01/29 Executive Order 14188—Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism Return to Table of Contents Continuing Developments Reference and Links 2025/04/16 US-China Perception Monitor: Fears of a China Initiative Revival Stir Anxiety Among Chinese American Academics Return to Table of Contents

The "China Initiative" A US government national-security program, created to address economic espionage, disproportionately targeted Asian Americans and academic communities for administrative errors and harmed academic freedom and open science. THE NUMBERS Known Cases 77 Known Impacted Individuals 162 Days Lasted 1,210 Explore the China Initiative What is it? Timeline of Events Impacted Persons Webinars What is the "China Initiative"? The "China Initiative" refers to a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) effort that was launched under the Trump Administration in November 2018. Its original aim was to combat economic espionage and theft of intellectual property that the U.S. government believed was being conducted by Chinese entities, including individuals and organizations with ties to the Chinese government. However, the “China Initiative” resulted in four major concerns: 1. Racial Profiling: The initiative led to racial profiling and the unfair targeting of Asian Americans. Individuals of Asian descent, including Chinese Americans, faced increased scrutiny or suspicion based on their ethnicity rather than any evidence of wrongdoing. 2. Stigmatization: The initiative perpetuated stereotypes and stigmatization of Asian Americans, making them feel like they are under suspicion or not fully trusted solely because of their heritage. 3. Impact on Scientific Collaboration: The initiative created a chilling effect on scientific collaboration between U.S. and Chinese researchers, hindering legitimate collaborative efforts and harming US leadership in science and technology. 4. Government Overreach. The initiative was overly broad, allowed abuse and misuse of authority by some law enforcement agents, and caused severe damage to the career, finance, and reputation of innocent individuals and their families. The “China Initiative” ended officially in February 2022 under the Biden Administration, but the harms it inflicted on targeted individuals and the broader AAPI community remain. Timeline of Major Events Nov 1, 2018 U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session launched the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China. Without a definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case, it drifted to profile and stigmatize Asian Americans and individuals of Asian descent, creating severe damage and a chilling effect on scientific collaboration and harming U.S. leadership in science and technology. 1. DOJ launched China Initiative Read more Dec 7, 2018 A month after the launch of the China Initiative, a group of community leaders met with a senior FBI official and representatives at the FBI headquarters in Washington DC to convey concerns raised within the Chinese American community about the role of bias in its investigations, among other issues, in a futile attempt to establish a continuing dialogue to address the concerns. 2. Attempted Dialogue with FBI Failed Read more Apr 19, 2019 Headlined by “How Not to Cure Cancer – The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a New Red Scare,” investigative reports emerged on FBI and NIH nationwide activities targeting individuals of Asian descent, especially biomedical researchers in the Houston area. 3. Media Reports on Purge by NIH and FBI Read more Aug 21, 2019 Kansas University Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao became the first academic and scientist of Chinese origin to be indicted in August 2019. He was followed by Professors Anming Hu and Gang Chen, Researcher Dr. Qing Wang, New York Police Department Officer Baimadajie Angwang, a group of five STEM researchers and students from China, and others. The year 2020 saw the injustice inflicted by the government shifting and intensifying its profiling of scientists, most of them of Chinese origin, for “research integrity” in the name of national security. 4. Shift to Profiling Scientists of Chinese Origin Read more Feb 27, 2020 From generation to generation, the Asian Pacific American communities have been resilient in fighting against discrimination and protecting their civil rights. It is a continuing effort that transcends the China Initiative, which again confirms the commitment and determination of the communities from elected officials to organizations and individuals. 5. Communities Respond with Resilience Read more Jan 5, 2021 On January 5, 2021, a coalition of organizations and individuals wrote to President-elect Joe Biden, requesting him to end the China Initiative and take steps to combat racial profiling. Two weeks later, the indictment of MIT Professor Gang Chen ignited the “We Are All Gang Chen” movement. Between September 2020 and June 2021, five organizations partnered to produce a series of five educational webinars to raise nationwide awareness about the China Initiative. 6. Letter to President-Elect Biden to End China Initiative Read more Jun 30, 2021 Following a public campaign led by Maryland State Senator Susan Lee and a coalition in February 2022, Reps. Jamie Raskin and Judy Chu hosted a Democratic Member Roundtable on “Researching while Chinese American: Ethnic Profiling, Chinese American Scientists and a New American Brain Drain” in June 2022. It was the first congressional hearing where the profiling of Chinese American scientists and the damage to American leadership in science and technology were heard. 7. Congressional Roundtable on Racial Profiling Read more Jul 22, 2021 The abrupt dismissal of visa fraud and other charges against five scientists from China in five separate “China Initiative” cases and the FBI reports from the discovery process exposed the weaknesses of the prosecutions, dissension in the FBI’s own ranks, and exaggerated claims of national security risks by the government. 8. Five Visa Fraud Cases Dismissed Read more Sep 8, 2021 A group of 177 Stanford University faculty members sent an open letter to US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, requesting that he terminate the China Initiative. The campaign became national and continued until the end of the China Initiative. More than 3,100 faculty, researchers, and scientists representing over 230 institutions from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico co-signed the letters. 9. Stanford Faculty Starts Nationwide Campaign to End China Initiative Read more Sep 15, 2021 Multiple media reports the China Initiative as unraveling and out of control after cases that were sensationally publicized early on by the government began to be dismissed or acquitted in courts rapidly in a span of several months. 10. The China Initiative Unraveling and Out of Control Read more Dec 2, 2021 On December 2, 2021, MIT Technology Review published two investigative reports on the China Initiative as newly appointed Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen was conducting a review of the initiative. 11. MIT Technology Review Investigative Reports Read more Feb 23, 2022 Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen announced the end of the China Initiative. The 1,210 days of the Initiative were extremely damaging to individuals and their families, as well as the Asian American and scientific communities. The end of the China Initiative is a welcomed start to correct the harms it caused. APA Justice is committed to continue its work to address racial profiling and seek justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American communities. 12. China Initiative Ends Read more BACKGROUND A pattern of racial profiling against Chinese American scientists began to emerge in 2015. In a relatively short time span, four naturalized American citizens in three separate situations were indicted for one of most serious crimes related to espionage and trade secrets that carried heavy penalties in prison terms and fines. These individuals worked in diverse fields - private industry, federal government, and academia respectively. All three cases were subsequently dismissed or dropped without apology or further explanation. This is highly unusual because the Department of Justice (DOJ) prides itself on its mission of prosecuting criminal cases. Conviction rate is a key measure of success and performance. Annual statistical reports show that the overall DOJ conviction rate in all criminal prosecutions has been over 90% every year since 2001. The rate for espionage-related charges is expected to be much higher than average due to its serious nature and impact on the accused. A combination of human mistakes, implicit bias, social stigmatism, explicit prejudice, and racial profiling may explain why some of these innocent individuals were wrongly prosecuted in the first place. However, the damages done to them and their families are undeniably devastating. The legal cost to defend oneself is high, easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars and higher. Reputations and careers built on many years of accomplishments would be forever lost or stalled in an instant, deeming them to become unemployed and unemployable. The emotional shock and fear leave traumatic scars on the individuals and family members for the rest of their lives. In effect, an innocent person, once wrongly accused, can seldom be made whole again. There are other individual victims whose cases were also dismissed or found not guilty. Some agreed to much lesser infractions than the original charges to avoid financial ruins. Our nation loses their talents and contributions to the society when they are forced to leave the country. These cases are almost never reported by the government. This website dedicates one webpage each for impacted individuals, many of them are heroically speaking out and fighting back for justice and fairness. Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi are the raison d'être for APA Justice. If you know of similar cases, please contact us at contact@apajustice.org . Jumpstart your knowledge on The China Initiative A 7-minute video aimed to educate the general public on increasing discrimination faced by Chinese scientists under the Department of Justice's China Initiative and to highlight the many scientific accomplishments they have contributed to U.S. institutions of higher education and research. Watch Interview of Dr. David Ho, Columbia University’s Clyde and Helen Wu Professor of Medicine; Michael A. Szonyi, Director of the Harvard University Fairbank Center; Catherine X. Pan, head of Dorsey & Whitney’s U.S.-China practice; and Frank Wu, President of Queens College and a Serica Initiative board member, among others. Watch Impacted Persons According to the Department of Justice and two investigative reports by the MIT Technology Review, the “China Initiative” had 77 known cases involving 162 individuals (one of them an entity). Twenty three (23) cases are identified as “Research Integrity” involving academics, researchers, and scientists. Academic Cases Other/Non-China Initiative Cases Read More Item One Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Two Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Three Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Chili Onions Pepperoni Mushrooms Olives Cheese Sort by Read More Item One Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Two Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Three Subtitle Goes Here Date File Date: This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Chili Onions Pepperoni Mushrooms Olives Cheese Sort by On December 2, 2021, MIT Technology Review published The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it . According to the report, the US government’s China Initiative sought to protect national security. In the most comprehensive analysis of cases to date, MIT Technology Review reveals how far it has strayed from its goals. Among its major findings are: The DOJ has neither officially defined the China Initiative nor explained what leads it to label a case as part of the initiative The initiative’s focus increasingly has moved away from economic espionage and hacking cases to “research integrity” issues, such as failures to fully disclose foreign affiliations on forms A significant number of research integrity cases have been dropped or dismissed Only about a quarter of people and institutions charged under the China Initiative have been convicted Many cases have little or no obvious connection to national security or the theft of trade secrets Nearly 90% of the defendants charged under the initiative are of Chinese heritage Although new activity appears to have slowed since Donald Trump lost the 2020 US presidential election, prosecutions and new cases continue under the Biden administration The Department of Justice does not list all cases believed to be part of the China Initiative on its webpage and has deleted others linked to the project. Two days after MIT Technology Review requested comment from the DOJ regarding the initiative, the department made significant changes to its own list of cases, adding some and deleting 39 defendants previously connected to the China Initiative from its website. This included several instances where the government had announced prosecutions with great fanfare, only for the cases to fail —including one that was dismissed by a judge after a mistrial. The MIT Technology Review database of 77 "China Initiative" cases is posted online and can be used for interactive analysis. It draws primarily on the press releases that have been added to the DOJ’s China Initiative webpage over the last three years, including those recently removed from its public pages. The MIT Technology Review supplemented this information with court records and interviews with defense attorneys, defendants’ family members, collaborating researchers, former US prosecutors, civil rights advocates, lawmakers, and outside scholars who have studied the initiative. APA Justice provided assistance to verify and validate the 77 "China Initiative" cases before the removal of some cases by DOJ. MIT Technology Review provides a second full report titled We built a database to understand the China Initiative. Then the government changed its records on how the database was built, what DOJ changed in its online report, and how the database is organized, including a statement on transparency and conflict-of-interest. 11/01/2018 - 02/23/2022 1,210 DAYS Endorsers of Stanford Letter Stanford University: 177 University of California Berkeley: 214 Temple University: 167 Princeton University: 198 University of Michigan: 430 Southern Illinois University Faculty Senate: 53 Yale University: 192 University of California Irvine: 92 University of Pennsylvania: 168 Baylor College of Medicine: 219 APA Justice nationwide campaign: 1,209 Total: 3,119 Number of institutions APA Justice nationwide campaign: 231 + Stanford University + University of California Berkeley + Temple University + Princeton University + University of Michigan + Southern Illinois University + Yale University + University of California Irvine + University of Pennsylvania + Baylor College of Medicine Number of states + territories States: 50 + District of Columbia + Puerto Rico Change.org supporters: 244 See University Responses to the China Initiative. On February 23, 2022, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Matthew G. Olsen, announced the end of the “China Initiative,” a program that was meant to address economic espionage but morphed into disproportionately targeting Asian Americans and academic communities for administrative errors and harming academic freedom and open science. While we disagree with Mr. Olsen’s self-assessment that the DOJ did not find racial bias in “China Initiative” cases, we welcome the end of the ill-conceived initiative and DOJ’s openness to listen and respond to community concerns. CHINA INITIATIVE ENDS On December 2, 2021, MIT Technology Review published The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it . Read full report China Initiative Analysis MIT Technology Review Cases charged under the China Initiative by year Impacted Persons According to the Department of Justice and two investigative reports by the MIT Technology Review, the “China Initiative” had 77 known cases involving 162 individuals (one of them an entity). Twenty three (23) cases are identified as “Research Integrity” involving academics, researchers, and scientists. Find detailed information on Impacted Persons on this page .

Am I required to answer? Mostly, no. You are generally not required to answer FBI or police questions (except, e.g., if you are asked for identification while driving a vehicle). Do I have the right to consult an attorney first? Yes. You have a right to talk to an attorney. If an FBI agent or police officer asks to speak to you, tell him or her that you want to consult with an attorney first. If you want to talk to the FBI or police, your attorney can respond on your behalf to set up an interview. Can information I give to the FBI without an attorney be harmful? Yes. ANY information you give to an officer without an attorney, even if it seems harmless, can be used against you or someone else. Lying to a federal officer is a crime. Remaining silent is NOT a crime (except in limited situations when you can be required to identify yourself). Am I required to allow the officer into my home? You are NOT required to allow the officer into your home without a warrant. Ask to see the warrant. If the officer does not have one, you do not have to let him/her into your home. However, do not try to stop him/her if he forces his way into your home or office. Simply state that they do not have your permission to enter. Do I have the right to see a warrant if the officer says that they have one? Yes. If the officer says that they have a warrant for your arrest, you have a right to see the warrant. You must go with the officer, but you do not have to answer questions until you consult an attorney. What should I do if I am detained? If you are detained, you should ask for an attorney and remain silent. What are my rights at the airport? Learn about your rights at the airport here . Questioned by the FBI or police? This is a letter to persons who believe they might be contacted by their employer, a funder, or government officials regarding their relationship to the People’s Republic of China. This includes, for example, university professors who have received grants to support their academic activities; researchers in STEM fields working in the private sector; civil servants; and even U.S. military personnel. It also includes individuals regardless of citizenship; holding a green card, having naturalized, or even being a native-born citizen will not protect you from potential problems. The most important message here is: if you have any concerns at all, you should consult with a lawyer as soon as possible, preferably one with specialized expertise. Read full letter Why you need a lawyer Frank H. Wu President Designate, Queens College, The City University of New York KNOW YOUR RIGHTS The FBI and other agencies have been questioning people across the country based on their First Amendment activity and on their race, ethnicity or national origin. Protect yourself by knowing your rights. Learn more Read Frank Wu's letter

Timeline Back to China Initiative Prev Next Table of Contents Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists Links and References Overview On November 1, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session announced the launch of the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). “This Initiative will identify priority Chinese trade theft cases, ensure that we have enough resources dedicated to them, and make sure that we bring them to an appropriate conclusion quickly and effectively.” Sessions said. President Donald Trump fired Sessions less than a week later, but the China Initiative remained in operation for 1,210 days until it was ended by the Joe Biden Administration on February 23, 2022. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had no definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case. DOJ created an online report on what it considered to be Chinese Initiative cases. The online report was last updated on November 19, 2021, three months before the initiative officially ended. According to MIT Technology Review , there have been 77 known China Initiative cases impacting 162 individuals. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the cases, MIT Technology Review concluded that the initiative had increasingly charged academics with “research integrity” issues. Nearly 90% of the defendants charged were of Chinese heritage, lending credence to wide-spread allegations that scientists and researchers of Chinese origin were racially profiled and targeted under the China Initiative despite denials by the government. The DOJ China Initiative cases included only indictments and prosecutions. It did not include investigations or surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and other federal law enforcement agencies and grant agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH ran its own China Initiative. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, NIH’s own “China initiative” had upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. FBI Director’s Profiling Approach The first thunder of the New Red Scare came on February 13, 2018, when FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and targeted all students, scholars and scientists of Chinese origin as a national security threat to the United States. Wray responded to a question in the hearing, “I think in this setting I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country. It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well. It’s across basically every discipline.” Asian American advocates were outraged by Wray’s presumption that every Chinese professor, scientist, and student was guilty of collecting intelligence for the Chinese government until proven innocent. Conflating the stereotype of “perpetual foreigners” and the loyalty of Asian Americans to the United States, Wray pledged to pursue a “whole-of-society” approach to address the threat of China. His use of the term “non-traditional collectors” for spies parallelled “thousand grains of sand” during the prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee and “fifth column” in referral to Japanese Americans during World War II. Qian Xuesen, also known as Hsue-shen Tsien, a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, became a victim of the Second Red Scare during the Cold War era, facing accusations of “communist sympathies” despite his contributions to American scientific advancement. Fourteen Asian American community organizations wrote to Wray on March 1, 2018, and called for “an opportunity to discuss how well-intentioned public policies might nonetheless lead to troubling issues of potential bias, racial profiling, and wrongful prosecution.” Wray never responded to the letter. References and Links Wikipedia: Qian Xuesen 2020/02/02 The Intercept: The FBI’s China Obsession - The U.S. Government Secretly Spied on Chinese American Scientists, Upending Lives and Paving the Way for Decades of Discrimination 2019/12/31 Bloomberg: As China Anxiety Rises in U.S., Fears of New Red Scare Emerge 2019/07/20 New York Times: A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington 2018/03/23 Huffington Post: FBI Director Defends Remarks That Chinese People In U.S. Pose Threats 2018/03/08 Washington Post Opinion: America’s new — and senseless — Red Scare 2018/03/01 14 Coalition Organizations: Coalition letter to FBI Director Wray 2018/03/01 Committee of 100: Community Organizations Call for Meeting with FBI Director Christopher Wray Regarding Profiling of Students, Scholars, and Scientists with Chinese Origins 2018/02/27 Asia Times: FBI director’s grave mistake on targeting Chinese-Americans 2018/02/16 纽约都市新闻网: 华裔议员严厉谴责Rubio和Wray针对中国学生的极端言论 2018/02/15 CAPAC: CAPAC Members on Rubio and Wray’s Remarks Singling Out Chinese Students as National Security Threats 2018/02/14 Inside Higher Ed: The Chinese Student Threat? 2018/02/13 Advancing Justice | AAJC: FBI Director’s Shock Claim: Chinese Students Are a Potential Threat 2018/02/13 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Global Threats and National Security 2016/05/25 60 Minutes: Collateral Damage 2015/05/10 New York Times: Accused of Spying for China, Until She Wasn’t 2000/09/14 New York Times: Statement by Judge in Los Alamos Case, With Apology for Abuse of Power . 1999/12/11 Washington Post: China Prefers the Sand to the Moles 1964/02/02 New York Times: F.B.I. Chief Warns of Red China Spies NIH’s Own “China Initiative” According to the Science Magazine, Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent a missive to more than 10,000 institutions on August 20, 2018, asserting that "threats to the integrity of U.S. biomedical research exist" and highlighted the failure to disclose "substantial resources from other organizations, including foreign governments." Collins wrote that "in the weeks and months ahead you may be hearing from [NIH] regarding … requests about specific … personnel from your institution." Dubbed as NIH’s own “China Initiative,” NIH began sending letters to dozens of major U.S. research universities in March 2019, asking them to provide information about specific faculty members with NIH funding who are believed to have links to foreign governments that NIH did not know about. Universities reportedly scrambled to respond to the unprecedented queries. Some academic administrators worry the exercise could cast a chill over all types of international scientific collaborations. Others fear that the inquiry may become a vehicle to impugn the loyalty of any faculty member—and especially any foreign-born scientists—who maintain overseas ties. At some institutions, every researcher flagged by NIH was Chinese American. The vaguely worded letters did not contain specific accusations, nor did it explain any aspect of the process. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, Science reported that NIH’s “China initiative” has upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. More than one in five of the 246 scientists targeted were banned from applying for new NIH funding for as long as 4 years—a career-ending setback for most academic researchers. And almost two-thirds were removed from existing NIH grants. Some 81% of the scientists cited in the NIH letters identify as Asian, and 91% of the collaborations under scrutiny were with colleagues in China. In only 14 of the 246 cases—a scant 6%—did the institution fail to find any evidence to back up NIH’s suspicions. NIH is by far the largest funder of academic biomedical research in the United States, and some medical centers receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the agency. So when senior administrators heard Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, say a targeted scientist “was not welcome in the NIH ecosystem,” they understood immediately what he meant—and that he was expecting action. “If NIH says there’s a conflict, then there’s a conflict, because NIH is always right,” says David Brenner, who was vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), in November 2018 when the institution received a letter from Lauer asking it to investigate five medical school faculty members, all born in China. “We were told we have a problem and that it was up to us to fix it.” In a panel discussion hosted by the University of Michigan in March 2024, Professor Ann Chih Lin, asserted that NIH made it clear that if they couldn’t resolve concerns regarding a faculty member and a grant, NIH would not only require universities to repay the grant, but also investigate universities’ entire portfolio of NIH grants. Fearing the loss of grant money, universities often approached the implicated professors and encouraged them to resign voluntarily or retire early. This strategy aimed to avoid a public disciplinary hearing or grievance process, which could bring unwanted attention to the case. Professors involved in such investigations typically refrained from discussing their cases to protect both themselves and the universities, often choosing to depart quietly. References and Links 2024/03/29 University of Michigan News: US universities secretly turned their back on Chinese professors under DOJ’s China Initiative 2023/02/23 Science: Pall of Suspicion 2019/03/01 Science: NIH letters asking about undisclosed foreign ties rattle U.S. universities Criminalizing China The name of China Initiative by itself is problematic. "Using 'China' as the glue connecting cases prosecuted under the Initiative's umbrella creates an overinclusive conception of the threat and attaches a criminal taint to entities that possess 'China-ness,' based on PRC nationality, PRC national origin, Chinese ethnicity, or other expressions of connections with 'China.,'" Professor Margaret Lewis wrote in her article "Criminalizing China" in 2020. Her article further contends that, when assessed in light of the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution, it is worrisome that the prosecution and punishment of people and entities rests in part on a connection with “China.” A better path is to discard the “China Initiative” framing, focus on cases’ individual characteristics, and enhance the Department of Justice’s interactions with nongovernmental experts. Margaret K. Lewis, Criminalizing China , 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 145 (2020). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol111/iss1/3 The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists On November 19, 2020, The China Project produced a video titled “ The China Initiative: The ethnic targeting of Chinese scientists and the subsequent brain drain .” (7:30) The China Project talked to lawyers, academics, and victims of the China Initiative for their perspective. Many Chinese and Chinese American researchers feel that the program has placed a target on their back, and that they are being unfairly targeted for their Chinese ethnicity. There are also critics who say the Initiative has done little more than drive talent away from the U.S. Jump to: Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists 1. DOJ launched China Initiative November 1, 2018 Timeline Contents Department of Justice: Information About The Department of Justice's China Initiative and A Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018 . (last updated November 19, 2021). Margaret K. Lewis, Criminalizing China , 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 145 (2020). 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review: The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it. 2020/11/19 The China Project: The China Initiative: The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists and the Subsequent Brain Drain . (video 7:30) 2020/10/30 The China Project: Scientists in the Crosshairs: What should Chinese and Chinese-American researchers do amid U.S. crackdown on ‘China ties’? (video 21:04) 2018/11/07 New York Times: Jeff Sessions Is Forced Out as Attorney General as Trump Installs Loyalist 2018/11/01 Department of Justice: Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces New Initiative to Combat Chinese Economic Espionage 2018/11/01 Department of Justice: Attorney General Sessions Announces Criminal Enforcement Action and New Initiative to Combat Chinese Economic Espionage (video 36:37) Links and References Timeline Known Cases Impacted Individuals

Racial Profiling Racial profiling refers to the act of targeting individuals or groups based on their race or ethnicity for law enforcement scrutiny, investigation, or surveillance. Asian Americans have historically been subjected to racial profiling and discrimination, despite being a diverse group with various ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and histories. Court Hearing and A New Movement Emerges This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Lawsuit Against Florida Senate Bill 264 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Texas House Bill 1075 and Senate Bill 552 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Campaign to Oppose The Nomination of Casey Arrowood This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. More News Recent developments Issues of focus China Initiative Follow recent news on the China Initiative and its impacted individuals. Politicization of Research Grants Learn about the politicization of the coronavirus research grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. Stereotype An over-generalized belief about a particular category of people Implicit Bias Attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner Social Stigma Disapproval of, or discrimination against, a person based on perceivable social characteristics that serve to distinguish them from other members of a society Prejudice Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment Discrimination The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things Racial Profiling The use of race, ethnicity or national origin as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense Read more about Continuing Developments in racial profiling of Asian Americans here. Profiling of Asian Americans The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers beginning in 1882. Subsequent amendments expanded the exclusion to all Asians. It was one of the most explicitly discriminatory laws based on race and national origin in U.S. history. The Chinese Exclusion Act and its amendments were not repealed until 1943. More on the Chinese Exclusion Act. During the Second World War, about 120,000 Japanese were interned under Executive Order 9066, about two thirds of them were native-born American citizens. Most of them were uprooted from their homes in the West Coast and sent to relocation centers for suspicion of disloyalty to the United States. In combination with these historical and stereotypical backgrounds, the current state of profiling of Chinese Americans is further entrenched by: Modern technology such as artifical intelligence and robotics is a major area of international competition for human talent. It also allows convenient collection of large amount of data and massive surveillance beyond the traditional boundaries, eroding civil liberties and privacy of all Americans and helping to target Asian Americans. Economic espionage and trade secrets became part of the expanded scope of national security after the 9/11 attacks. Athough no person of Chinese descent is known to have participated in acts of terrorism, Chinese Americans became subjects of surveillance and profiling as economic spies and insider threats. The rapid rise of China as an economic power in the past decades and its ambitious long-term development programs have become a threat to the U.S., both real and perceived. This threat is further promoted actively by the traditional military-industrial complex and the growing security-industrial complex. Engage China, or Confront it? The national security strategy issued in late 2017 officially declared China to be a competitive rival to the U.S. Implementation of the strategy has followed with intensified information campaigns and additional legislations and regulations that also enable the profiling practice, such as the "whole-of-society" approach advocated by FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Department of Justice China Initiative when anti-immigrant rhetoric are also rising. "Modern federal criminal laws have exploded in number and became impossibly broad and vague," according to criminal defense and civil liberties litigator Harvey Silverglate in his book titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Without adequate transparency, oversight, and accountability, "prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any innocent individuals, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior." In total or in part, these factors have led innocent Asian Americans to recent persecutions as explicit targets, collateral damage, and scapegoats in the context of national security. Racial profiling is legally and morally wrong. 2. A Growing Pattern Government mistakes in espionage cases are rare. However, prior to Professor Xi's wrongful prosecution against Professor Xi, Sherry Chen, Guiqing Cao and Shuyi Li were also accused of spying for China in two separate cases. Their cases were all dropped within a two-year period. These innocent Chinese American scientists work in the academia, federal government, and private industry. Subsequent to 2015, there have been additional prosecutions of Chinese American scientists that collapsed, such as a former Michigan State University professor and two Tulane University professors. More details here . 3. Failure of Checks and Balances As the pattern of profiling against innocent Chinese American scientists began to emerge and pile up, many began to raise questions to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether race, ethnicity and national origin have played a role in their investigations and prosecutions. Those that spoke out include, but are not limited to: 42 members of the U.S. Congress The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Delaware U.S. Senators and Congressman Prominent scientists, engineers and professors Civil rights organizations Despite these and many other appeals being well-documented, the system of checks and balances failed to account for the public concerns. 4. Labels and Misinformation The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) deny that they target Asian Americans based on race, ethnicity or national origin. However, actions such as the use of code names and provocative messages by senior government officials tend to suggest otherwise. On February 13, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate hearing that Chinese professors, scientists, students across basically every discipline are "nontraditional collectors" spying for China. According to a media report , FBI and intelligence agencies have urged universities to surveil Chinese students and scholars. The Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats declared in a July 2018 public forum: "Don't send your kids here!", "Don't put your people on our labs!", and "You cannot steal our secrets!" In its publicity campaign on "China: The Risk to Academia ," the FBI highlights the "annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets" as $225 - $600 Billion. As the American Physical Society pointed out , the “$225 - $600 Billion” figure "turns out to be primarily based on a generic GDP multiplier that would apply to any country at any time – it has no specific bearing on current circumstances with China or academia, as the title of the document unfortunately suggests." "Thousand Grains of Sand" by FBI official in 1999 "Fifth Column" during World War II "Communist Sympathizer" during the Red Scare Irresponsible code names have been used historically to stigmatize Asian Americans as "perpetual foreigners ," insinuating that they are not to be distrusted and their loyalty is always questioned, no matter how many generations they have lived in the U.S. Prior to FBI Director Wray coining the term "nontraditional collectors ," another FBI official advanced the "thousand grains of sand " and "mosaic " theories about Chinese in America when Dr. Wen Ho Lee was being persecuted about two decades ago. During World War II, Japanese persons in the West Coast were portrayed as the "fifth column ." Dr. Qian Xuesen and others were labeled "communist sympathizers " during the Red Scare in the 1950s. 5. Shifting Grounds and Double Standards In recent years, the FBI shifted its targets to those associated with China's talent recruitment programs, including the Thousand Talent Program. However, government recruitment program is nothing new. Japan has The World Premier International Center Initiative; the United Kingdom has the Earnest Rutherford Fund; Canada has the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program; Singapore has RIE2020; Israel has I-CORE; and France has the "Make Our Planet Great Again" Initiative. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. As long as the rules are followed, it is perfectly legitimate for academics to pursue opportuntities in the talent recruitment programs. In 2015, the former head of the Beijing office for the National Science Foundation (NSF) said that U.S. scientists can access world-class facilities, uniqiue geographic sites, and expertise in a growing number of fields by coolabroating with Chinese colleagues. In additon, as ties are built with Chinese funding agencies, NSF funding can be leveraged in coordinated partnerships on topics that are of interest to both countries. In 2014, the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai and quoted Louis Pasteur, "Science knows no country because knowledge belongs to humanity," as the topic of his speech. Indeed, cancer knows no country. Coronavirus knows no country. According to the book titled "The Great Influenza," in the height of World War I and the influenze epidemic, a researcher found an effective way to fight the virus. Both the military officials and the leading scientists supported the decision to publish the research results, even if it would help the enemies, the Germans, on the battlefields. 6. "Researching While Chinese" Some say that some Chinese persons did do something wrong. However, it is not the right question to ask. For example, Sandra Bland , an African American woman, was stopped by a state trooper for signaling while making a traffic turn. Was it improper? It certainly was, but nobody should go to jail and died for it. The same can be said for Samuel DuBose for missing a front license plate. Or Philando Castile for a broken tail light. They all died for offenses they would not have had had they not been African Americans. Similarly, the right question we should ask is whether it is okay for the entire group of Chinese professors, scientists, and students being singled out for targeting as suspected non-traditional collectors for China, or Chinese spies. That is racial profiling. That is wrong. Proud to be a Chinese American Xiaoxing Xi I was jogging on the National Mall and along Pennsylvania Avenue this morning. As the sun came out behind the iconic landmarks, my heart welled up with pride of being a Chinese American. I ran by the Washington Monument. It is the ideal that “all men are created equal” the Founding Father fought for that has attracted me and many others to become an American citizen. I passed by the Lincoln Memorial. Abraham Lincoln gave his life to preserve the Union and abolish a system that treated people differently based on their races. Running past the Capitol Steps, my appreciation became so clear that in this country, people’s voice can be heard through a democratic process. I jogged in front of the FBI building. I commend the men and women who devote themselves to the protection of our country. In my case, however, they have used their might against an innocent citizen. What do these all mean to me? We need to get involved in the democratic process. If we see a bad policy, a bad practice, that hurt our country, we need to speak out and let our voice be heard. That we have the right to do so is what this country is so great about. As a proud citizen, I pledge to do my part. 7. Criminalizing Fundamental Research Threatens U.S. Leadership There is no evidence to support the government's crackdown of open scientific exchanges with China as they are mostly on basic research. The national policy governing federally-funded research has been National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189). Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, it defines fundamental research as basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community. It states that it is the policy of this administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. If national security requires control, then classify the research. Since the principle of freedom to publish and disseminate results is so fundamental to U.S. universities that many of them do not accept funding that restricts their faculty from publishing and disseminating research results. For example, the Princeton University policy says the University will not, as a matter of policy, accept any contracts or grants for the support of classified research. However, in its publicity campaign document, the FBI says, "Even if the technologies and their applications are not currently classified, they could be in the future." The "thousand grains of sand" and "mosaic" theories are widely held by the intelligence community - a collection of unclassified documents would create a classified document. According to these theories, while the Russians would steal the one classified document, the Chinese steals all the unclassified documents and put them together. So Chinese professors, scientists, and students are suspected of stealing secrets anyway, even when they are conducting fundamental research. On November 18, 2019, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a staff report which makes a number of recommendations. Recommendation 11 says, "The administration should consider updating NSDD-189 and implement additional, limited restrictions on U.S. government funded fundamental research... Federal agencies must not only combat illegal transfers of controlled or classified research, but assess whether openly sharing some types of fundamental research is in the nation's interest." If the scientific community does not speak up, the day it can freely publish fundamental research and to openly discuss among colleagues may be numbered. This push for restrictions of open fundamental research reflects a total lack of understanding about what has made America the world leader in science and technology in the first place. In the book titled "Technology and National Security: Maintaining America's Edge," writer and historian Walter Isaacson wrote a chapter on The Source of America's Innovation Edge. He pointed out that the triangular partnership between government, industry, and academia created an ecosystem that helped produce the technological revolution after World War II. Each partner has its unique functions, and universities are where free and open research is conducted. If the free and open environment is lost and turned into national laboratories, American competitiveness in science and technology will be stifled. Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Deutch also wrote in the same book, "The risk of loss [of technology to China] is minor compared to the losses that will be incurred by restricting inquiry on university campuses." In other words, in the name of protecting America's research integrity, the policies that restrict open research on university campuses are in fact destroying America's leadership in science and technology. The Department of Justice denies that it makes decisions based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Harvard University Chemistry Department Chair Dr. Charles Lieber is cited as an example, but this is precisely what Professor Xi has been warning. Anyone who has academic collaboration with Chinese colleagues can become a target of the FBI. One does not have to be Chinese. According to a U.S. attorney, academic collaborations with China is "by definition conveying sensitive information to the Chinese." Once you are targeted, everything is under the microscope. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189) "'Fundamental research' means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons." It is the policy of this Administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. It is also the product of this Administration that, where national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally-funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities, and laboratories is classification. 8. Balance Between Open Science and Security On December 11, 2019, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released the JASON report on Fundamental Research Security. JASON is an independent group of elite scientists which advises the U.S. government on matters of science and technology. JASON was briefed by representatives of the intelligence community and law enforcement during the study. They had access to all the available classified information In the end, the JASON report says in its findings the scale and scope of the [foreign influence by the Chinese government] remain poorly defined. It recommends that NSF should support reaffirmation of the principles of NSDD-189, which make clear that fundamental research should remain unrestricted to the fullest extent possible. It also says failure to disclose commitments and actual potential conflicts of interest should be investigated and adjudicated by the relevant office of NSF and by universities as presumptive violations of research integrity, with consequences similar to those currently in place for scientific misconduct. Not by the FBI. Not by throwing them into jail. In Professor Xi opinion, the scientific community should rally around the JASON report. It is well balanced, and it provides a blueprint of the proper response for the U.S. government for the perceived threats of the Chinese government to fundamental research. 1. Wrongful Persecution Born in China, Professor Xi was among the first students to attend college after the Cultural Revolution in China. He received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Peking University and Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science, in 1987. After several years of research at the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center, Germany, he came to the U.S. and worked for Bell Communication Research/Rutgers University and University of Maryland before joining the Physics faculty at Penn State University in 1995. He moved to Temple University in 2009. On May 19, 2015, he was informed that he would be appointed permanent Chair of the Physics Department. Two days later on May 21, 2015 when the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus was convening a press conference to express concerns about racial profiling in the case of Sherry Chen, Professor Xi was sensationally arrested in the wee hours of the morning. Media reports the following day quoted the Department of Justice that Professor Xi was a "Chinese spy" selling sensitive information to China. Four charges were subsequently made, all of them based on intercepted emails. Professor Xi and his lawyer refuted point-by-point that the allegations were totally false. In particular, five top experts, including one whose trade secrets were allegedly stolen, examined the emails and provided affidavits to support Professor Xi's defense that he did not share or sell proprietary information to China. In fact, the fundamental research results were readily available in the Internet. Professor Xi and his lawyer raised the question of how publicly available technology can be "stolen" and alleged to be a criminal act. On September 11, 2015, DOJ dropped all charges against Professor Xi without explanation or responding to his questions. However, irreparable damage to his finances, career, reputation and his family had already been made. Profiling Today Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (1921-1989) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 . As the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, Sakharov was awarded the Peace Prize for "his opposition to the abuse of power and his work for human rights." Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize every second year to recipients for "outstanding leadership and/or achievements of scientists in upholding human rights." Professor Xiaoxing Xi (郗小星) of Temple University is a 2020 recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize. He is himself a victim of racial profiling . Since the wrongful prosecution against him was dropped in 2015, Professor Xi has been tirelessly speaking up across the nation to stop the injustice of racial profiling, defend openness in university campuses, and protect American competitiveness in science and technology. Professor Xi was scheduled to receive the Andrei Sakharov Prize on March 4, 2020. The event was cancelled due to concerns about the coronavirus. Professor Xi recorded his prepared presentation in a 32-minute video. It provides compelling facts and arguments that cover not only the wrongful prosecution against him, but also the government's abuse of authority at the expense of American competitiveness and leadership by criminalizing fundamental research. This page is dedicated to communicate and expand on Professor Xi's message on racial profiling, which has already infected academia, government, private industry, and other segments of American society. It provides a synopsis of profiling today.

China Initiative Webinars China Initiative Webinar Series #1 The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" #2 Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists #3 Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present #4 Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" #5 The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" #6 The Aftermath in the Mistrial and Racial Profiling of University of Tennessee under the “China Initiative” #1 The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" #2 Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists #3 Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present #4 Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" #5 The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" #6 The Aftermath in the Mistrial and Racial Profiling of University of Tennessee under the “China Initiative” #1 The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" #2 Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists #3 Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present #4 Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" #5 The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" #6 The Aftermath in the Mistrial and Racial Profiling of University of Tennessee under the “China Initiative” #1 The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" #2 Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists #3 Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present #4 Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" #5 The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" #6 The Aftermath in the Mistrial and Racial Profiling of University of Tennessee under the “China Initiative” #1 The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" #2 Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists #3 Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present #4 Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" #5 The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" #6 The Aftermath in the Mistrial and Racial Profiling of University of Tennessee under the “China Initiative”

Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 Case number: 2025L007963 Cook County Circuit Court Estate of Dr. Jane Wu v Northwestern University Date Filed: June 23, 2025 On August 31, 2024, South China Morning Post published an exclusive report on the tragic passing of Dr. Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 , a prominent Chinese American researcher in neurology and genetics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Wu took her own life on July 10, 2024, after her lab was shut down and all records of her work were erased by Northwestern University. Her death has drawn attention to the negative impact of the "China Initiative" and "foreign interference" investigations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which targeted scientists of Chinese descent. Over 250 scientists, most of them of Asian origin, have been scrutinized by the NIH alone, leading to job losses and severe personal and professional damages, and now an apparent loss of life. According to the report, there were only two indictments and three convictions as legal outcomes of the NIH's "China Initiative" investigations, yet at least 112 scientists lost their jobs as a result. The NIH Office of Extramural Research, headed by Dr. Michael Lauer , declined to say whether Dr. Wu was a target but a source informed about the matter said there were investigations of Dr. Wu. Dr. Wu was remembered by her peers as a warm, caring, and inspiring role model. Dr. Wu's contributions to neurodegenerative disease research and her involvement in training the next generation of scientists in the U.S. and China were widely recognized. She significantly influenced the careers of many scientists, including Dr. Bing Ren , who credits her with guiding him into molecular biology. “Dr Wu taught me basic molecular biology skills, and showed me how discoveries were made at the bench,” said Dr. Ren, who first met Dr. Wu in 1993 and worked under her direct supervision at Harvard University. “Dr Wu was the one that opened my eyes to the wonderful world of molecular biology, and convinced me to pursue a career in this field,” said the professor in cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “The investigations killed her career,” said Dr. Xiao-Fan Wang , a distinguished professor in cancer research at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “She was such a devoted scientist. Denying her the right to do research was like taking away the most important thing in her life,” Dr. Wang said. Dr. Wang is a former president of the Society of Chinese Bioscientists in America (SCBA) said the research community had been devastated by Wu’s death. “It’s hard to believe such a familiar and upbeat colleague has left us,” he said. In March 2019, SCBA, the Chinese American Hematologist and Oncologist Network, and the Chinese Biological Investigators Society write an open letter to Science , titled " Racial Profiling Harms Science ." "[We] hope that ... increased security measures will not be used to tarnish law-abiding scientists ...," the letter said. Molecular geneticist Adrian Krainer from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York said, “I remember her as a kind and caring person. She was very devoted to training the next generation of scientists in both the US and China.” Born in Hefei, Anhui province in 1963, Dr. Wu graduated from Shanghai Medical University in 1986 and went on to earn her doctorate in cancer biology from Stanford University in the US. She did postdoctoral research at Harvard University and spent a decade at Washington University in St Louis as an assistant and then associate professor in pediatrics, molecular biology and pharmacology before joining Northwestern University in 2005. Northwestern University has not responded to multiple inquiries from the South China Morning Post since July 2024. Dr. Wu’s profile page on the medical school has disappeared. Other web pages, such as her publication and grant records on the Northwestern Scholar website, have also been deleted. “The university’s reaction is rather unusual,” said a Chinese American biologist based in Ohio, who did not wish to be named. “Normally, the school or the university would publish an obituary and keep the faculty’s webpage for a period of time.” Dr. Wu was buried in Chicago on July 17, 2024. She was 60 years old. Dr. Jane Wu's Estate Sues Northwestern University In June 2025, Dr. Wu's family, acting through her estate, filed a civil lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that the Northwestern University discriminated against her and contributed to her suicide. She was a tenured professor at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine. Following the NIH’s investigation and Northwestern University’s subsequent efforts to block her work, Dr. Wu suffered from a loss of vision as a result of a stroke she had under the stress of the investigation. She also experienced depression, but she was still able to work. In May 2024, Northwestern University handcuffed and removed Dr. Wu from her office, using her emotional disability as a “pretext” to evict her. The school then partially shut down her laboratory, dismantled her research team, reassigned her grants to white male colleagues, and committed her involuntarily to psychiatric care—actions taken without family consultation. Tragically, Dr. Wu passed away by suicide on July 10, 2024, two weeks after her release from the hospital. Following the one-year anniversary of her mother’s passing, Dr. Wu’s daughter, Elizabeth Rao 饶婕, opened up for the first time in an exclusive interview on the devastating impact of her mother’s treatment on their family and her own life. The lawsuit was filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois on June 24, 2025. Case number is 2025L007963. It claims institutional discrimination based on her national origin, sex, and disability, citing violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The case is assigned to Judge Jonathan Clark Green. A court hearing was held on December 1, 2025, starting at 9 am CT. Location is Court Room 1906, Richard J Daley Center, 50 W Washington St, Chicago, IL 60602. Northwestern University filed a motion to dimisss the case. The Cook County Circuit Court has scheduled a hearing for February 24, 2026. References and Links Circuit Court of Cook County: Online Civil, Law, Chancery, Domestic Case Search (Law - Personal Injury and Contract Cases over $30K, malpractice, attorney codes) 2025/12/03 South China Morning Post: US university seeks to dismiss lawsuit by family of China-born scientist Jane Wu 2025/07/12 NBC News: After Northwestern scientist questioned for China ties died by suicide, family sues and speaks out 2025/07/01 South China Morning Post: Family of China-born neuroscientist Jane Wu files death-related civil complaint in US 2025/06/26 Daily Northwestern: Estate of Feinberg professor sues University for discrimination, role in suicide 2019/03/22 Science: Racial profiling harms science Previous Item Next Item

Xifeng Wu 吴息凤 Dean and Professor of School of Public Health, Vice President of the Second Affiliated Hospital, Director of the National Institute for Data Science in Health and Medicine, Zhejiang University, China Former Director, Center for Public Health and Translational Genomics, Professor, Department of Epidemiology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Dr. Xifeng Wu is Dean and Professor of School of Public Health, Vice President of The Second Affiliated Hospital, Director of National Institute for Data Science in Health and Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. She joined Zhejiang University in March 2019.Dr. Wu is also a naturalized U.S. citizen. She was Director, Center for Public Health and Translational Genomics and Professor, Department of Epidemiology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) in Houston. Dr. Wu was subjected to multi-year harassment and investigations. She was put on administrative leave for over a year. During that time, she was not allowed to return to her research laboratory, talk to researchers in her research group and after three months all her research grants were reassigned to other researchers. In other words, her research career was put on hold since December 2017, immediately after MDACC turned over 10-years records of 23 researchers over to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and 8 months before MDACC received the letters from the National Institute of Health (NIH) in August 2018.Dr. Wu retired from MDACC in early 2019. Several other Chinese American scientists were also forced to either retire or leave. Dr. Wu is one of many victims of ongoing racial profiling. While she is able to use her expertise to combat COVID-19 in China, her family still lives in Houston. This is a vivid example of how profiling results in U.S. loss of talent, competitiveness, and leadership in today's science and technology when we need them the most. Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Experience in Zhejiang and Hangzhou As the coronavirus crisis is ending in China in March 2020, the U.S. declared a national emergency. Dr. Wu published an article titled " 6 lessons from China's Zhejiang Province and Hangzhou on how countries can prevent and rebound from an epidemic like COVID-19 " in the World Economic Forum on March 12, 2020. It offers valuable lessons the global community including the U.S. could learn at national and local levels. They are Speed and accuracy are the keys to identification and detection Make the right decisions at the right time, the right place, for the right people Big data and information technology are important to avoiding a rebound Evaluate medical resources and response systems. Are we ready for a pandemic? How much stock do we need? Do we have enough health care personnel, and how do we protect them? Implementation of preventive measures in communities, schools, businesses, government offices and homes can influence the trajectory of this epidemic Keep the public well informed 2009 Rogers Award Lauds Wu for Cutting-Edge Research In 2009, MD Anderson published the following report on Dr. Wu receiving the Julie and Ben Rogers Award for Excellence in Research: “The words ‘visionary’ and ‘revolutionary’ have been used to describe the work of Xifeng Wu, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences at MD Anderson. “Recipient of the 2008 Julie and Ben Rogers Award for Excellence in Research, Wu has created a molecular epidemiology research program that bridges epidemiology, statistics, laboratory study and clinical research. With a focus on identifying cancer risk factors as well as markers that can predict an individual’s response to treatment, her research is essential in the quest to develop personalized cancer therapies and to improve prevention efforts. “’These models may help clinicians identify patients who are most and least likely to benefit from treatments, as well as those most likely to develop toxic reactions,’ she says. “Wu is the principal investigator on nine epidemiological studies funded by the National Institutes of Health. She is a collaborative investigator on many other NIH-funded grants, including a recent multi-institutional study of bladder cancer, which she directed. “’I see these integrative projects as the best way to translate science into medicine,’ she says. ‘They’re only possible through close teamwork within a large multidisciplinary group of scientists.’ “Though Wu began her medical education in China, she has spent all of her academic career at MD Anderson. She received her medical degree from Shanghai Medical University in 1984 and her Ph.D. in epidemiology from The University of Texas School of Public Health in 1994. She joined MD Anderson in 1995 as an assistant professor and by 2004 was a full professor. She held an Ashbel Smith Professorship from 2006 to 2008. She holds the Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention at MD Anderson and also is on the faculty of The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. “Wu is internationally recognized for her pioneering work in genetic cancer susceptibility markers and germline genetic variations. One of her major interests is pharmacogenetics, a new field that identifies genetic variations that can help determine why some patients respond better than others to therapeutic drugs. “Somehow Wu also finds time to lead a multidisciplinary team of 35 people. “’Mentoring trainees and junior faculty members is a responsibility and a privilege,’ she says. ‘They are the future of science and discovery, and I take great pride in their every success. To me, their success is my success. It is my dream that they will cherish the institution’s core values of caring, integrity and discovery as I do and spread them all over the world when they become independent investigators.’” References and Links Zhejiang University: Xifeng Wu 浙江大学: 吴息凤 2020/05/20 World Affairs Council: The Public Health Response to Covid-19 in Zhejiang Province and Washington State – Virtual Program 2020/03/18 ProPublica: The Trump Administration Drove Him Back to China, Where He Invented a Fast Coronavirus Test 2020/03/18 Chronicle of Higher Education: Hounded Out of U.S., Scientist Invents Fast Coronavirus Test in China 2020/03/12 World Economic Forum: 6 lessons from China's Zhejiang Province and Hangzhou on how countries can prevent and rebound from an epidemic like COVID-19 2019/06/20 South China Morning Post: Creating a climate of fear for Chinese scientists in the US benefits neither Washington nor Beijing 2019/06/17 Next Shark: FBI Accused of Targeting Chinese Americans Trying to Cure Cancer for ‘Spying’ 2019/06/14 Clean Technica: FBI & NIH Demonize Chinese Researchers As Trump-Inspired Paranoia Spreads Across America 2019/06/14 Axios: U.S. targeting Chinese cancer researchers 2019/06/13 Bloomberg Businessweek: The U.S. Is Purging Chinese Cancer Researchers From Top Institutions 2019/04/19 Science: Exclusive: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian’ researchers after NIH flags their foreign ties 2016/10/21 Houston Chronicle: Research: Dr. Xifeng Wu 2009 MD Anderson Center: Accolades and achievements Previous Item Next Item

Qing Wang 王擎 Docket ID: 1:20-mj-09111 District Court, N.D. Ohio Date filed: May 12, 2020 Date ended: July 20, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Deletion from DOJ China Initiative Online Report 2021/09/15 Washington Post Report Cleveland Clinic Foundation Held Accountable in 2024 Links and References Overview On May 14, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of Dr. Qing Wang as a former Cleveland Clinic employee and a Chinese “Thousand Talents” participant. The case was listed under the China Initiative. Dr. Wang was charged with false claims and wire fraud related to more than $3.6 million in grant funding that he and his research group received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cleveland Clinic fired Dr. Wang the same day he was arrested. Dr. Wang was born in China, began his work at the Cleveland Clinic in 1997 and became a U.S. citizen in 2005. He specialized in breakthroughs in heart disease at the Lerner Institute of the Cleveland Clinic—one of the world’s leading research centers. On July 15, 2021, DOJ moved to dismiss its case against Dr. Qing Wang. In a statement, the DOJ explained, "The United States Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, against Qing Wang, a.k.a. Kenneth Wang. The Office has made this decision after a review of the case and will decline further comment at this time." The Cleveland Clinic also released a statement saying, “We have fully cooperated with federal law enforcement’s investigation into this matter. Dr. Wang’s employment was terminated following an internal review which revealed violations of Cleveland Clinic and National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies.” On July 20, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. ordered the dismissal of Dr. Wang’s case. After DOJ made the motion to dismiss Dr. Wang’s case, it proceeded to delete it from its online report on the China Initiative – a practice that was continued unannounced and without explanation for several months until November 2021 when APA Justice reported it to the Attorney General and MIT Technology Review began to build a database on the online report. On September 15, 2021, the Washington Post published an interview with Dr. Wang, who later restarted his research career at China’s Huazhong University of Science and Technology. On June 21, 2024, Science reported that DOJ reached a settlement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), requiring CCF to pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations of mismanagement involving three NIH grants. This settlement sends a clear message that research institutions will be held accountable for failing to adequately monitor outside support provided to their faculty. Defense attorney for Dr. Wang maintained that his client had followed the rules and voluntarily disclosed his Chinese support. “He told them everything—both NIH and CCF.” The CCF settlement, he added, simply confirmed Dr. Wang’s innocence. Deletion from DOJ China Initiative Online Report The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintained an online report on China Initiative cases since the initiative's launch in November 2018, including Dr. Qing Wang's case. However, after the DOJ moved to dismiss Dr. Wang’s case, DOJ deleted his case from the online report. This unannounced practice of removing dismissed or acquitted cases continued for several months without explanation. On November 24, 2021, APA Justice reported the removal of about 20 cases from its online China Initiative report to Attorney General Merrick Garland. MIT Technology Review brought this practice to light with a published investigative report on December 2, 2021. DOJ ceased to update its online report on November 19, 2021. The end of the China Initiative was formally announced on February 23, 2022. 2021/09/15 Washington Post Report According to the Washington Post on September 15, 2021, in the weeks leading up to his arrest, Dr. Qing Wang was interviewed by the Cleveland Clinic and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about his grants. He got no indication he was under criminal suspicion. “I was shocked,” he said about his early morning arrest in May 2020. “At that moment,” he said, “I felt that my life was over.” Dr. Wang was the lead investigator on a research project on the genetics of cardiovascular disease, funded by more than $3.6 million in NIH grants. He allegedly neglected to disclose to NIH that even as he was a professor at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner College of Medicine, he was a beneficiary of the Thousand Talents Program, through which the Chinese government recruits academics in the West whose expertise might benefit Beijing. In an affidavit , FBI agent John Matthews alleged that through the program, Dr. Wang was made dean of the College of Life Sciences at Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The agent said Wang concealed receiving Chinese government grants totaling $480,000 for research that overlapped with his U.S.-funded work. In particular, Matthews alleged, citing NIH information, “the families used in both studies were mostly the same.” Dr. Wang’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, disputed the allegations, saying Wang disclosed his research in China as part of the NIH application and did not use American families for the Chinese study. Dr. Wang also disclosed to the Cleveland Clinic that he was affiliated with the talent program, said Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at Arent Fox in Washington. “Ultimately this came down to whether the grant forms were filled out correctly,” Zeidenberg said. “The information was all there. It just wasn’t where the NIH was looking.” Over 34 years of research in the United States, including 21 at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Wang led a team that discovered the first gene for Brugada syndrome, a disorder causing irregular heart rhythm, which can be fatal — especially in young people. He wanted to stay in the United States because it “has the best environment for science in this area,” and because he thought he would have the most impact in a country where heart disease is the leading cause of death. The arrest terrified Dr. Wang, his wife, Qiuyun Chen, and their two daughters. “We worked so hard day and night just trying to understand how to prevent human disease,” said Chen, who also came to the United States in 1986 to study and was a member of Dr. Wang’s Cleveland Clinic research team. “And you never think this would be criminal.” Cleveland Clinic Foundation Held Accountable in 2024 According to a report by Science on June 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled that research institutions will be held accountable for oversight failures. In a settlement reached on May 17, 2024, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) agreed to pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations of mismanaging three National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. As part of the settlement, a senior CCF administrator must personally attest to the accuracy of all NIH submissions, a significant responsibility. The case began in 2018 when NIH investigated CCF cardiovascular geneticist Dr. Qing Wang, based on an FBI list of scientists allegedly receiving Chinese funding. Following a CCF investigation, NIH suspended Dr. Wang’s $2.8 million grant in April 2020, and CCF terminated his employment. Dr. Wang was arrested in May 2020 under the China Initiative but was later cleared when the DOJ dropped the charges in July 2021 without explanation. Dr. Wang’s lawyer maintained that Dr. Wang had disclosed all necessary information to NIH and CCF, asserting his client's innocence. The CCF settlement follows earlier civil settlements with the Van Andel Institute, where scientists were not criminally charged, amounting to $6.6 million in 2019 and 2021. Previous Item Next Item

Turab Lookman 特拉伯·鲁克曼 Docket ID: 1:19-cr-01439 District Court, D. New Mexico Date filed: May 22, 2019 Date ended: September 10, 2020 Overview On May 22, 2019, Dr. Turab Lookman was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on three counts of making false statements. Dr. Lookman moved from India to the U.K. at age 13 and later earned a doctorate in theoretical physics from King’s College, University of London. He spent around 20 years as a professor at a Canadian university before joining Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. He became a U.S. citizen in 2008. Dr. Lookman was recognized as a Laboratory Fellow, one of LANL’s highest awards for its scientific staff. He co-authored over 250 scientific papers and two books. He received LANL's Fellows Prize for Outstanding Research in 2009 and the Distinguished Postdoctoral Mentor Award in 2016. He was terminated from LANL following his arrest. Dr. Lookman was charged with falsely denying his involvement with China's Thousand Talents Program, facing up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each false statement to federal investigators. Dr. Lookman’s contact with China came partly through the lab’s collaboration with that country on research projects, such as one aimed at discovering new materials that could support nuclear deterrence and the lab’s energy work. In June 2019, a month after Dr. Lookman’s indictment, the Department of Energy issued an order barring department staff and contractors from involvement in a foreign government's talent recruitment program. Federal prosecutors characterized Dr. Lookman as a serious national security threat due to his high-level security clearance, which granted him access to critical facilities and highly sensitive nuclear secrets. They claimed he "had no loyalty to the U.S." Dr. Lookman's lawyer argued that prosecutors exaggerated his access to classified information, asserting that there was no evidence he had unlawfully obtained or intended to share nuclear weapons secrets with any foreign government. Dr. Lookman initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but In January 2020, he accepted a plea agreement to one count of making a false statement with dismissal of the other two charges. On September 11, 2020, Dr. Lookman was sentenced to five years of probation and a $75,000 fine for providing a false statement to the Department of Energy. He was not allowed to leave New Mexico for the term of his probation. Previous Item Next Item