Search this site

A group of prominent leaders in biomedical research warn that recent government actions with respect to Chinese scientists in the U.S. could threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical science. August 21, 2019 On August 21, 2019, a group of 150 prominent leaders in U.S. academic and industrial biomedical research and drug development published a letter titled " Chinese scientists and US leadership in the life sciences ," warning that recent actions by government agencies and universities with respect to Chinese scientists in the U.S. could threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical science. "We, the undersigned, are leaders in U.S. academic and industrial biomedical research and drug development. We are concerned that recent actions by government agencies and universities with respect to Chinese scientists in the U.S. could threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical science. Recently, some scientists from China, or American-born of Chinese heritage, have been summarily dismissed from their university positions, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty in our biomedical communities. Let us be clear: we must absolutely guard against foreign espionage and IP theft, and prosecute those who engage in it, whatever their origins. At the same time, actions that more broadly limit collaboration between Chinese and American scientists and companies would be deleterious to our national interests; so too would limitations on American residents of Chinese origin receiving government research funding or being employed by the NIH. In military wars between national adversaries, leaders often vilify “the other.” Our “war” unifies an international community of medical researchers to fight a common adversary, disease: cancers, immune diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, infections, to name just a few. Vilifying or excluding any group as “the other” limits our ability to win this war. The United States’ unique constitution as a nation of immigrants has been fundamental to our world leadership in biomedical research and drug development. Our nation most prolifically attracts the best, most diverse talent from the entire world. This has enriched our economy and society. As a case in point, our preliminary research indicates that, since 1999, over 400,000 US patents have been issued to inventors of Chinese descent, and approximately 28% of U.S. biomedical science publications in 2018 included an author of Chinese descent. An atmosphere of intimidation will encourage many outstanding scientists of Chinese origin to leave the US or never to come. In addition, scientists from other countries who are working in the U.S. cannot fail to get the message that they may well be next. We also note that the vast majority of the results of academic biomedical research are not secret; their publication and open exchange are the cornerstone of our success against our common enemy of human disease and suffering. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” We support the opinions recently published by the editors of Nature, Nature Biotechnology and by former NIH Director Elias Zerhouni , and advocate for measured policies that will both protect U.S. intellectual property and continue to foster the diversity and collaboration that fuel our ability to advance science and cure disease. At a minimum, universities must effectively communicate and consistently apply their rules governing scientific collaborations and IP obligations, and they, as well as government agencies, must clearly justify their actions when they accuse scientists of malfeasance or seek to dismiss them from their positions. Ronald Reagan said, “We lead the world, because unique among nations, we draw our people, our strength from every country and every corner of the world,” and, “If we ever close our door to new Americans, our leadership in the world will soon be lost.” Nowhere are these thoughts more pertinent than in biomedical science. If we are to prevail in humanity’s common quest to conquer disease, our surest route is to include any person able to contribute, regardless of country of origin, religion, race, gender, or other identity. The U.S. biomedical community stands for the principles of diversity and unity embedded in the founding principles of our country, without which our leadership indeed will soon be lost." Read the original letter here for all the signatories. A group of prominent leaders in biomedical research warn that recent government actions with respect to Chinese scientists in the U.S. could threaten U.S. leadership in biomedical science. Previous Next Pharmaceutical Chiefs and Scientists Support Chinese Researchers Living in ‘Climate of Fear’

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. February 23, 2022 Table of Contents Overview Caught in the Crossfire Request for Release of DOJ Review Report Community Town Hall Racial Profiling Before and After The China Initiative Links and References Overview 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 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. The work to address racial profiling against Asian Americans is far from over; in fact, it is just beginning. The flawed China Initiative has caused immeasurable damage to victims, and eroded the trust and confidence Asian American and academic communities placed in law enforcement. We urge transparency and accountability going forward. APA Justice is committed to continuing our work on these important issues. Moving forward, we urge the DOJ, the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), and federal funding agencies to engage in dialogue with Asian American and academic community leaders, be responsive to public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and inquiries, and provide facts and data to support their policies and practices. We hope this is the beginning of real change to reduce systemic prejudice and bias and focus on legitimate national security threats. We are encouraged by the progress made by OSTP to develop and implement fair and consistent reporting requirements that will not “diminish our superpower of attracting global scientific talent” and not “fuel xenophobia against Asian Americans.” More needs to be done for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be fully engaged with the Asian American and scientific communities. In addition to transparency, APA Justice strongly believes that the federal government must be held accountable for its misconduct and abuse of power. Unfortunately, DOJ has not provided remedies for the impacted communities to heal and regain trust in the government, or offered an apology or support to the scientists who were falsely charged and suffered tremendous damage personally and professionally. The aggressive prosecutions and investigations by the DOJ and FBI have had devastating effects for families, friends, colleagues, and community members. Congress and the public must hold our institutions accountable for misconduct and misguided policies. DOJ must work to rebuild trust with the people it serves, particularly the Asian American and academic communities. They have been terrorized over the past three plus years under the China Initiative. We were encouraged that the DOJ acknowledged the chilling effect across academia, and believe that by advancing transparency and accountability, the U.S. government will send a signal that America is indeed the shining beacon of freedom and justice for all. APA Justice thanks the tremendous support from members of Congress and community partners in civil rights and academia who have worked tirelessly to support the victims and advocate for changes to the China Initiative. APA Justice is committed to fostering the ecosystem to effectively address racial profiling concerns and advocate for justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American communities. Caught in the Crossfire On March 30, 2022, WHYNOT | 歪脑 produced a video titled Caught in the Crossfire for the third and final episode of its "Caught in the Crossfire" series. It followed the case of MIT professor Gang Chen, one of the most prominent scholars being charged under the China Initiative, to show how the program had subjected scientists to loyalty tests. During the China Initiative’s lifespan of three plus years, the focus gradually shifted to academia, targeting a number of researchers and professors with grant fraud charges. Among those who were charged under the initiative, nearly 90% were of Chinese heritage, and many of the cases involving research integrity have been dropped after lengthy and costly legal battles. Concerns about racial profiling were repeatedly refuted by the FBI and the DOJ even as the China Initiative came to an end. The video has three chapters: "We Are All Gang Chen" 我们都是陈刚 The "China Initiative" "中国行动计划"的前生今世 A Scientist's Loyalty 科学家为谁而忠诚 2022/03/30 WHYNOT: How the DOJ's China Initiative subjected scientists to loyalty tests (video 16:39) 2022/03/30 歪脑: 大国夹缝中：“中国行动计划”下科学家面临的忠诚拷问 (video 16:39) Request for Release of DOJ Review Report On March 8, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen, requesting the release of a report on the Department of Justice's (DOJ’s) review of the “China Initiative.” Release of a report on the findings of the review is critically important to ease the broad concerns that the end of “China Initiative” is just in name but does not reflect a change in fact and substance. It is common for the government to produce a written report to memorialize an important review and usually includes the defined scope, issues examined, process and methodology used, findings, recommended changes, decisions, and plans for implementation. Community Town Hall On March 17, 2022, a virtual town hall meeting was held for community members to ask a panel of experts questions about the recent announcement from the Department of Justice to end the China Initiative. The meeting was convened by a coalition led by Advancing Justice | AAJC. It was not recorded. APA Justice issued the following statement for the town hall meeting: “Thank you, Advancing Justice | AAJC, for organizing this town hall. “The APA Justice Task Force fully supports the end of the ‘China Initiative.’ We appreciate the Department of Justice’s openness and willingness to engage, listen, and respond to community concerns. “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. “On March 8, we wrote to Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen and requested the public release of a report memorializing the findings of his review. We raised five basic questions, including the scope of his review, the new role for the National Security Division, the re-start of implicit bias training, the thoroughness of the thousands of existing prosecutions and investigations, and whether the review covered allegations of DOJ and FBI misconduct. “Mr. Olsen’s response will go a long way to help us move forward. We will stay vigilant and continue to stand up and speak out. Our mission is not complete. “We need our government and our university administrations to be transparent, accountable, and operate with fairness and integrity. “APA Justice will focus on three main areas moving forward. “We call for Congress to exercise its oversight role to hold law enforcement and federal agencies accountable. We thank the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) for its continuing leadership. “We fully support the initiative started by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure that the new policies related to research security will not fuel xenophobia or prejudice. “We will urge university administrations to inform, assist, and protect their faculty members. Apply fair and due process. Do not cave and do not throw your faculty members under the bus. “The 1,210 days of the ‘China Initiative’ have been extremely damaging to individuals and their families, as well as the Asian American and scientific communities. “We sincerely hope that the end of the ‘China Initiative’ will bring real change, start the healing process, and rebuild the lost trust. We look forward to work with many of you in this important journey. Thank you.” Racial Profiling Before and After The China Initiative The China Initiative was not the first, nor will it be the last, racial profiling faced by the Asian Pacific American communities in the history of the United States. We are not a perfect nation. Although some progress is made, we must never cease to pursue the ideals and principles of the United States through continuous awareness, education, civic engagement, and holding the government accountable. Visit our Racial Profiling page to learn more about some of the recent history before the China Initiative was launched and the continuing developments and attempts to revive the China Initiative since its end in February 2022. Jump to: Overview Caught in the Crossfire Request for Release of DOJ Review Report Community Town Hall Racial Profiling Before and After The China Initiative 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. Previous Next 12. China Initiative Ends

2020 was an unprecedented year that saw our nation increasingly divided and filled with anti-Asian hate. However, it ended with a positive story on humanity in which the heroes and victims in an anti-Chinese hate crime are not even of Chinese origin. December 27, 2020 The year 2020 was one of unprecedented challenges that saw our nation increasingly divided, unable to control the COVID-19 pandemic that was filled with anti-Asian hate and continuing profiling of hundreds if not thousands of Chinese American scientists under investigations and prosecutions. However, it ended with a positive story on humanity in which the heroes and victims in an anti-Chinese hate crime are not even of Chinese origin. On December 27, 2020, a virtual event was held with Professor Steven Pei as the host to conclude a successful GoFundMe campaign , which was reported by the World Journal under the headline 员工勇救亚裔 华人5天募10万 . During the event, Zach Owen and Bawi Cung took the stage to express their appreciation for the generous donations of more than $121,000 from over 2,700 individuals. President Qiang Gan and Treasurer Lin Li of ACP Foundation Dallas reported the state of the finances and various details of the fundraiser. Other organizers for the fundraiser include OCA Greater Houston (H.C. Chang and Cecil Fong); Reagan Hignojos , friend of the Cung Family; United Chinese Americans (Steven Pei); and APAPA Austin Texas Chapter (C.J. Zhao). Bawi Cung and his two boys, aged 2 & 6, were hate crime victims in Midland, TX on March 14, 2020. The suspect thought the Burmese family was Chinese and spreading the coronavirus and attacked them with a knife. As a bystander, Zach Owen disarmed the suspect bare handedly. Unfortunately, Zach’s right palm also suffered permanent injury and has retained only 40% of his grip strength. With the hope to find a better job in the west Texas oil field, Zach came to Midland from Oklahoma. The injury disqualifies him from many oil field jobs. He has also been treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The first $50,000 of donation will still be given to Zach on or before his birthday in mid-January 2021 to pay for his ongoing out-of-pocket medical bills, cover some of the financial deficit incurred due to the reduced working hours during his recovery period, and also help with Zach’s return to a normal life. We need more heroes like Zach Owen. Earlier on June 22, 2020, a coalition of Asian American organizations honored Zach Owen and Bernie Ramirez , a Border Patrol agent who also intervened in the violent anti-Asian stabbing with a special Lily and Vincent Chin Advocacy Award Ceremony . It was followed by the From Vincent Chin to George Floyd Webinar led by Helen Zia, award-winning journalist and community activist, and moderated by Gordon Quan, attorney and former Houston City Council member. On August 10, 2020, Zach Owen testified in the Tri-caucus Congressional Forum on Rise in Anti-Asian Bigotry during the COVID-19 Pandemic ,” which was organized by the Congressional Asian Pacific Americcan Caucus. 2020 was an unprecedented year that saw our nation increasingly divided and filled with anti-Asian hate. However, it ended with a positive story on humanity in which the heroes and victims in an anti-Chinese hate crime are not even of Chinese origin. Previous Next 2020 Ends With A Positive Story

Alien Land Bills This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. The numbers Calls per hour 111 Feedback submitted 22 Average feedback per call 21 As of May 28, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few have passed and signed into state law; some have died; others are still pending. State-by-state links to the legislations and a companion map are provided below as community resources. They are collected from multiple sources including research by APA Justice, Advancing Justice | AAJC, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, media reports, and crowdsourcing. Due to the dynamic nature of these developments, we plan to update the information periodically. We anticipate the introduction or continuation of alien land and property bills into future state legislative sessions. Title Oct. 4th 2023 Tracking Bills Read More Latest developments

Kaikai Zhao 赵凯凯 Docket ID: 1:20-cr-00187 District Court, S.D. Indiana Date filed: Aug 4, 2020 Date ended: July 26, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on claimed visa violation, including Kaikai Zhao. A fifth scientist was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Kaikai Zhao applied for a United States Non-Immigrant Visa in June 2018 and was issued an F1 Visa for a PhD program studying machine learning and artificial Intelligence at Indiana University (IU) in Bloomington, Indiana. On July 23, 2020, DOJ charged Kaikai Zhao and charged with one count of visa fraud and one count of making false statement. On July 23, 2021, Acting U.S. Attorney John E. Childress and Assistant United States Attorney Matthew J. Rinka motioned to dismiss the case against Kaikai Zhao “with prejudice, in the interests of justice.” On July 26, 2021, Judge James R. Sweeny, II, granted the dismissal of the case against Kaikai Zhao. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Kaikai Zhao were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. Five “Visa Fraud” Cases he Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: Lei Guan (关磊) , Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛) , Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟) , Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣) , Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯), Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

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. September 15, 2021 Table of Contents Overview “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” Links and References Overview Over a two-day period in July 2021, five similar prosecutions against Chinese researchers were summarily dropped without explanation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). They were suspected to belong to the Chinese military and might be stealing American industrial secrets under the China Initiative, but were not charged for espionage. A week earlier, DOJ dismissed charges, also without explanation, against Qing Wang, a Chinese American researcher in Cleveland, who was accused under the China Initiative of failing to disclose his affiliation with a Chinese university from which he had received funding. Less than two months later in September, a federal judge acquitted Anming Hu, a Chinese Canadian engineering professor in Tennessee, of charges stemming from allegations under the China Initiative that he hid his joint academic appointment in China in obtaining research funding from NASA. Having a mistrial and six cases dismissed within several weeks “is extraordinary,” a former federal prosecutor said. “It really undermines the credibility of the [China] initiative.” These high-profile cases raise the question of whether the China Initiative designed to address a national security threat posed by the Chinese government has strayed, targeting researchers on lesser allegations of fraud without compelling evidence that they pose a danger to the United States. “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” On September 15, 2021, the Washington Post published on its front page As cases fail, security initiative's aim is questioned . To federal investigators, Qing Wang was an example of China’s growing effort to co-opt scientists in the United States — part of a vast campaign to steal American secrets and technology. But a string of dismissed cases including Wang's has amplified concerns among some lawmakers and activists about whether prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing researchers of Chinese descent. The issue goes beyond whether the government is bringing prosecutions it can win. Critics say the cases raise the question of whether a program designed to address a national security threat posed by the Chinese government has strayed, targeting researchers on lesser allegations of fraud without compelling evidence that they pose a danger to the United States. In many of the cases, the Justice Department is “using language akin to spycraft, but that’s not substantiated by the charges they are bringing,” said George P. Varghese, a former federal prosecutor in Boston. For the 20 or so academics prosecuted in the past three years and linked to the China Initiative, most charges related to lack of candor — making false statements or failing to disclose ties to Chinese institutions — rather than intent to spy. All but a few of the researchers are of Chinese descent. John Hemann, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, worked the flagship China Initiative case: the 2018 indictment of Chinese state-owned Fujian Jinhua. He said the department was successfully prosecuting China-related economic espionage cases long before the China Initiative. But pressure to demonstrate the initiative’s success — to “show statistics,” he said, “has caused a program focused on the Chinese government to morph into a people-of-Chinese-descent initiative,’’ including Chinese-born scientists working in the United States. “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” On September 16, 2021, LA Times published Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling . The article covered recently dropped "China Initiative" cases including visiting UCLA researcher Lei Guan and University of Tennessee Professor Anming Hu. Michael German, a former FBI agent who serves as a fellow for the Brennan Center for Justice, said the recent dismissals revealed how weak many of the cases were. “Obviously, the FBI and Justice Department are under pressure to produce indictments against people with a so-called ‘nexus to China’ to match the political rhetoric sensationalizing the espionage threat from the Chinese government,” he said. “Even FBI analysts appear to have felt the investigators’ effort to connect these defendants to the Chinese military was overwrought.” Although much remains unknown about the Trump-era campaign, it appears that a major problem was its decision to focus on Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans working in major U.S. research universities. Not only did that approach fail to turn up persuasive evidence of spying, but the emphasis on going after a small number of individuals for academic fraud seemed too small-scale to make a dent in a purportedly massive problem. Moreover, the FBI’s tactics struck many Asian Americans as heavy-handed and discriminatory. The campaign came at a time when Asian Americans across the country were under attack with hate crimes. Defending the program, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray warned that Beijing, in its effort to overtake the U.S. economy, had resorted to industrial espionage using “non-traditional collectors” such as researchers and graduate students. He told a China Initiative conference in 2020 that the FBI had about 1,000 investigations involving China’s attempt to steal U.S.-based technology. In April 2021, the director testified before Congress that the bureau had about 2,000 open cases of economic espionage that “tie back to the Chinese government,” representing a 1,300% increase over the last few years. But in the nearly three years since the program’s launch, the China Initiative has brought just 12 prosecutions of people at academic institutions and has won convictions of four individuals. In none of those four cases did the government provide evidence of economic espionage or theft of trade secrets or intellectual property. “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” On September 17, 2021, the Editor-in-Chief of The Diplomat published Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course ? The comprehensive article raised the question: After a resounding legal defeat, will the Justice Department change stance on the controversial program? The initiative potentially covers a lot of ground, making it hard at times to know what officially counts as part of the "China Initiative." “No one has been able to explain to me how a case gets labeled a China Initiative case,” [Seton Hall University Law Professor Margaret] Lewis said. “…By nature, it’s a bit of an amorphous creature.” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” On September 25, 2021, the University World News published Professor acquittal - Is China Initiative out of control? Dr. Anming Hu, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville professor, faced federal charges related to his alleged connection to Beijing University of Technology while receiving funding from NASA. He was the first to go to trial under the China Initiative, which aims to prevent economic espionage and technology theft. However, Judge Thomas A Varlan dismissed all charges, criticizing the FBI's weak case. Despite this, Hu faced a lengthy legal ordeal, beginning with an indictment in 2020. The FBI's investigation relied on questionable evidence, including Google Translate translations and a lack of understanding of NASA grant procedures. The prosecution's case crumbled under scrutiny, revealing flaws in the FBI's methods and biases against individuals of Chinese descent. Jurors expressed disbelief in the case's merit, leading to a mistrial. The China Initiative, criticized for targeting individuals based on ethnicity, has faced calls for its end. Concerns about racial profiling and the initiative's effectiveness have prompted scrutiny from scholars, former prosecutors, and lawmakers. Despite the dismissal of charges, Hu's ordeal underscores the need for reform in how such cases are handled and the impact of biased policies on individuals and communities. “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” On September 28, 2021, Law360 published “Overheated”: How a Chinese-Spy Hunt at DOJ Went Too Far . In July 2020, Dr. Chen Song and four other visiting Chinese scientists were arrested under the China Initiative and accused of concealing their military affiliations while applying for visas in the U.S. Their cases were dropped in July 2021. Documents unearthed in the cases show politics and pressure from the top propelling bad cases forward, overwhelming skeptics within the government. Two of the visa defendants spent more than a year in jail, even though their cases were ultimately abandoned. Another was locked up nine months, with his fiancée jailed for two months as a possible witness. Song was one of the lucky ones, spending only four days in jail. According to a Law360 analysis, nearly two dozen academics have been indicted under the China Initiative, including U.S. citizens and longtime residents, and the overwhelming majority have been charged for errors on government paperwork or alleged false statements to investigators. More cases have ended in dismissals than convictions, and many defendants have accused investigators of misconduct. The initiative has led to a significant exodus of Chinese researchers from the U.S., with concerns about persecution driving many to leave. Critics also point out that the focus on Chinese economic espionage overlooks other national security threats, leading to calls for reforms and an internal DOJ investigation into the initiative. Jump to: Overview “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” 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. Previous Next 10. The China Initiative Unraveling and Out of Control

Community Networking This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share. You can use this space to tell users a story about the company or describe a special service it offers. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Explore

The University of North Texas has suddenly ended its relationship with visiting scholars receiving funding from China. August 26, 2020 On August 26, 2020, the University of North Texas (UNT) announced that it has ended "its relationship with visiting scholars who receive funding from the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC, also known as the Chinese Scholarship Fund)." Access to UNT email, servers, and other materials, as well as the J-1 program under the U.S. Exchange Visit Program, were terminated immediately. In essence, the action expelled these scholars from the United States. On August 31, 2020, Ling-Chi Wang, Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley, wrote a letter to UNT to express "shock and profound concern" over the sudden expulsion of students from the university and the U.S. "In the absence of any legitimate explanation, the expulsion appears to be national origin-based and possibly racially and politically motivated, an action explicitly prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964," Professor Wang wrote in the letter. On the same day, retired Julie Tang also wrote to UNT to protest the expulsion of Chinese students . "Their summary removal from the College appears to be a serious violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law under the 14th Amendment," Judge Tang said in the letter. UNT President Neal Smatresk had issued a statement on " Moving Forward and Living Our Values as a Diverse, Inclusive Community " on June 17, 2020. "I am steadfastly committed to celebrating our diversity and working toward the changes necessary for our university to lead in the fight against racism and bias so that each and every individual feels like a valued member of our Mean Green family," the statement said. A concerned individual has also sent a protest message to UNT President Smatresk, pointing out that the purge of Chinese scholars is not based on misbehavior but on the source of their funding assistance. The UNT letter is a "get-out-of-Dodge" letter from the "Sheriff" with no pretense of due process. " It is a resurrection of the shameful Chinese Exclusion Acts of the past." On September 3, 2020, the petition to " Take back the decision to end the relationship with the Chinese scholars who fund by CSC " has gathered morfe than 6,000 signatures. It has been reported that UNT expelled 15 Chinese government-backed scholars. It is unknown at this time whether the expulsion is a unilateral decision made by UNT, how many other higher education institutions have taken similar action on their own, or an implemenation of a government policy. Available evidence suggests that it may be related to a 2020/08/18 letter from a State Department official. The University of North Texas has suddenly ended its relationship with visiting scholars receiving funding from China. Previous Next Another Purge of Scholars from China?

Programs and Initiatives Explore ways to get involved. Click on a program below to learn more about efforts to combat racial profiling and unfair government policies, or find them in the menu above. Advocacy Read More Advocacy for justice and fairness: our work with policy makers to push for AAPI rights and to ensure justice for AAPI academics and scientists. Community Networking Read More A network giving greater resources and a more assertive voice to the Asian American community. History & Education Read More Learn more about important historical events and cases involving Asian American people and culture. Yellow Whistle Campagn Read More Our partnership with the Yellow Whistle Project to promote self-protection and solidarity against discrimination and violence.

Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has urged FBI Director Christopher Wray to "hold biannual meetings with national leaders of Chinese American and Asian American organizations." April 2, 2020 On April 2, 2020, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and urged him to "hold biannual meetings with national leaders of Chinese American and Asian American organizations regarding issues of importance to those communities as you work to counter the foreign intelligence threat from the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC)." On May 29, 2020, the Assistant Director of the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs replied with this letter to Senator Warner. A previous meeting between the Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division and Asian American leaders was cited as productive in the letter. The background and context of the December 7, 2018 meeting is available here . Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has urged FBI Director Christopher Wray to "hold biannual meetings with national leaders of Chinese American and Asian American organizations." Previous Next Senator Warner Letter to FBI Director Wray

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.

As part of his opening remarks during a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Chairman Adam Schiff spoke out against profiling Chinese Americans. May 16, 2019 As part of his opening remarks during the House Intelligence Committee hearing on " China's Digital Authoritarianism: Surveillance, Influence, and Political Control " on May 16, 2019, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated: I would like to end on a serious note about the importance of ensuring that we confront the issue ahead in the most objective way, and consistent with our Nation’s principles and values. While competition with China is inevitable, conflict is not and we must strive to avoid making it so. We must also guard against betraying our values at home even as we champion them abroad. There must be no place for racial profiling or ethnic targeting in meeting to rise of China. In America, one of our enduring strengths is welcoming and celebrating diversity. Chinese Americans have made countless contributions to our society. Chinese Americans are Grammy-winning producers, Olympic medalists, cutting-edge scientists, successful entrepreneurs, academics, acclaimed artists, and some of our most successful intelligence officers and national security professionals. We would all be wise to view Chinese Americans as one source of our great strength and not with pernicious suspicion. As part of his opening remarks during a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Chairman Adam Schiff spoke out against profiling Chinese Americans. Previous Next House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Statement on Racial Profiling