Newsletter - #287 Civic Leadership Forum; Endorse Stanford Letter; Qian Xuesen; MSP Lecture; Election; + #287 Civic Leadership Forum; Endorse Stanford Letter; Qian Xuesen; MSP Lecture; Election; + In This Issue #287 · Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War · Additional Endorsers and Letters Invited to Oppose Revival of China Initiative · McCarthyism and Qian Xuesen 钱学森 · "Threats to Academic Freedom and International Engagement: China and Beyond" · APIAVote: Election Information in Your State · News and Activities for the Communities Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War On October 11, 2024, Civic Leadership Forum Silicon Valley: The U.S. vs. China: A Talent War was held at Ding Ding TV studios. Over 300 people watched the livestream of the event, which covered three topics: · Understanding the implications of losing top talent to China. · Discovering how trade wars and talent loss affect the middle class. · Exploring strategies for fostering collaboration and retaining talent. The expert panel included: · Scott Rozelle : A leading scholar in Chinese economics, Rozelle has recently participated in Track Two diplomacy initiatives between the U.S. and China. · Peter Michelson : A renowned physicist at Stanford University, Michelson has expressed concerns about the impact of the DoJ’s China Initiative on reverse brain drain. · Peter Zeidenberg : A successful lawyer who has defended Americans wrongly accused of espionage-related crimes, including Kansas University Professor Franklin Tao. · Joel Wong : A dedicated advocate for the Asian American Pacific Islander community and a prominent figure in U.S.-China relations. Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao , and his wife Hong attended the event and spoke about their ordeal . Former Congressman Mike Honda led off the Q&A session. Dr. Ken Fong , sponsor of the event, gave closing remarks . Additional Endorsers and Letters Invited to Oppose Revival of China Initiative On October 9, 2024, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that more than 165 Stanford faculty members signed a letter to congressional leaders to “strongly oppose” legislative efforts to reinstate the China Initiative. The U.S. House has passed a measure to bring back the Trump-era initiative, which was ended in February 2022. Lawmakers also included language directing the U.S. Department of Justice to restart the probe in a government-spending bill. Both proposals require Senate approval. Gisela Kusakawa , executive director of the Asian American Scholar Forum, said it was important for professors and researchers to voice their concerns because they see firsthand the importance of international collaboration — and the chilling effect of the initial federal inquiry. She encourages faculty members at other colleges to also weigh in vy endorsing the Stanford letter or write their own letters. “By speaking out, these scholars can help shape policies that safeguard the academic landscape for future generations,” she said, Steven A. Kivelson , a professor of physics who spearheaded the drafting of the Stanford letter with Professor Peter Michelson , said he has worked with “brilliant” graduate students, postdocs, visiting scholars, and longtime research partners from China. “The China Initiative was significantly harmful to such collaborations, without having any clear positive implications for national-security issues,” he wrote in an email to The Chronicle. “There are few policy matters that seem so clear-cut to me as that the China Initiative should not be revived.”Read the Chronicle report: https://bit.ly/3U6ZD8J . Read the Stanford faculty letter: https://bit.ly/4dCVC2P . Endorse the Stanford faculty letter: https://bit.ly/4eXkWBw . The 1990 Institute has joined the White House , CAPAC , a coalition of community organizations , Committee of 100 , and National Asian Pacific American Bar Association in issuing a statement condemning the attempt to revive the China Initiative: https://bit.ly/3U8bLpT .On October 13, 2024, Forbes Breaking News posted a video recording of a hearing by the House Oversight Committee on September 24, 2024, in which Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) slammed the premise of the hearing and questioned witnesses about discrimination against the Chinese community. Watch the video: https://bit.ly/4029aSa (5:23) On October 12, 2024, Fair Observer reported that escalating political tensions between the U.S. and China are hindering scientific collaboration and making it harder for the U.S. to attract and retain talented Chinese scholars, according to a new study co-authored by Wharton professor Britta Glennon . Both countries are increasingly focused on self-sufficiency in science, diverging from long-standing international collaboration trends. This shift towards nationalism, Glennon argues, may have unintended consequences for innovation. The study, titled "Building a Wall around Science," was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Read the Fair Observer report: https://bit.ly/4dKyAa7 . McCarthyism and Qian Xuesen 钱学森 In China, Qian Xuesen 钱学森 is hailed as a national hero—an aerospace engineer who took China into space. Here in America, Qian’s story is a lesson about how McCarthyism and American insecurity made America less secure. Qian Xuesen left the Republic of China in 1935 to study aerospace engineering at MIT, and he later became a professor at CalTech and co-founded NASA’s famous Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was a welcome guest in the U.S. for more than ten years. In fact, shortly after World War II, the U.S. Government thanked him for his contribution to the war effort, including his service on the U.S. government’s Scientific Advisory Board as an Air Force lieutenant colonel. At the height of McCarthyism in 1950, the FBI accused Qian of being a communist and a threat to national security. He felt betrayed and humiliated, and after trying unsuccessfully to clear his name. The Department of Justice placed him under house arrest and forbade him from leaving for five years from 1950-1955 until the United States finally decided to deport him. Rather than helping the United States land on the moon, the country forced Qian out, and he helped build China’s space program. Still, there is no evidence that Qian ever spied for China or was an intelligence agent when he was in America, and government officials later described his deportation as “the stupidest thing this country ever did.” Qian’s life is recognized as globally pivotal in both Chinese and American history. The BBC wrote: “Qian's life spanned almost a century. In that time China grew from an economic minnow to a superpower on Earth and in space. Qian was part of that transformation. But his story could have been a great American one too - where talent, wherever it is found, could thrive.” Sources: 2020/10/26 BBC : Qian Xuesen: The man the US deported - who then helped China into space National Museum of Nuclear Sciences and History: Qian Xuesen Wikipedia: Qian Xuesen Alex Liang , second year student at Harvard Law School, contributed this report. "Threats to Academic Freedom and International Engagement: China and Beyond" On November 12, 2024, Massachusetts Society of Professors (MSP) at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, will host a lecture on "Threats to International Engagement and Academic Freedom," starting at 4:00 pm ET. The featured speaker is Dr. Yangyang Cheng , Particle Physicist and Research Scholar at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Across the country, faculty and students are facing impediments to international engagement, and sometimes at significant personal risk, arising from increasingly strict federal regulations. International faculty and students are especially vulnerable, as are Chinese Americans and others with ties to countries experiencing strained US relations.At UMass Amherst, there are strong unions with the power to enforce robust contracts. The MSP event and the conversations it generates will help mobilize the UMass community to win and sustain the strongest possible protections for research and professional lives.The event will be held at UMass Amherst Lederle Graduate Research Center A112. It will also be streamlined by Zoom at https://umass-amherst.zoom.us/j/96950189589 . For more information, visit: https://bit.ly/3Yn2lcH APIAVote: Election Information in Your State November 5, 2024, is Election Day. Voters will elect the next President and Vice President of the United States. All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election, and 34 seats in the U.S. Senate will be contested. There will also be state and local elections, as well as ballot initiatives or referendums.Every state has different rules for its elections. APIAVote (Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 that promotes civic participation and voter engagement in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities. It focuses on increasing voter registration, turnout, and advocacy to ensure AAPI voices are represented in the U.S. political process.APIAVote has developed an online map to provide state-by-state election dates, including registration and mail-in deadlines, as well as early voting. It also provides translated mailers to over 1 million AAPI households and online in order to inform them on how, where and when to vote, in their preferred language. To find out specific information about your state, visit: https://bit.ly/4f2qKtB According to NPR on October 14, 2024, in an election race this close, Asian American voters have become a force. The Asian and Pacific Islander Political Alliance (APIPA) is working to mobilize AAPI voters in Pennsylvania ahead of the 2024 election, canvassing daily to support Vice President Kamala Harris and other endorsed candidates. AAPI voters, though a small part of the electorate in this critical swing state, have grown significantly, with their numbers increasing by 55% between 2010 and 2020. The group's efforts reflect the growing importance of the AAPI population in political engagement, particularly in tight races where their votes could be decisive.Outreach to AAPI communities has been a challenge for both major parties, partly due to the cost and labor involved in translating voting materials. However, candidates like Harris have focused on targeted advertising and voter engagement in Asian American media, emphasizing her own immigrant background. While the Donald Trump campaign has done less specific outreach, they have attempted to tap into nostalgia for the economy during Trump's presidency. AAPI voters, once engaged, tend to remain politically active, and their support could prove crucial in several swing states.In other states, like Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia, AAPI voters are also seen as a key demographic, with advocacy groups working to build long-term political engagement. Democratic organizers have noticed a surge in South Asian volunteers and increased outreach from both parties. However, some within the AAPI community still feel politically marginalized, a challenge advocacy groups are working to address by increasing voter outreach and representation in campaigns.Read the NPR report: https://n.pr/3BTAnfO News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events:2024/10/16 Rebuilding Trust in Science2024/10/20 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/10/22 Engage with AAAS: 2024 U.S. Elections2024/10/25-27 Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the American Studies Network2024/10/26 Common Ground and Banquet2024/10/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/03 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/10 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/12 Threats to International Engagement and Academic Freedom2024/11/14 Asian American Career Ceiling InitiativesVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Committee of 100: Asian American Career Ceiling Initiative WHAT : Asian American Career Ceiling Initiative: “An Advice and Networking Event (Financial Services, Investing and Consulting)" WHEN: November 14, 2024, 6:00 pm - 7:15 pm ET WHERE: Webcast HOST: Committee of 100 Moderator: Peter Young , Chair, Committee of 100 Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative DESCRIPTION: This virtual event, the 37th in a series, will enable Asian Americans of all ages to get valuable career advice from experienced and successful Asian Americans in the Financial Services, Investing and Consulting professions. Committee of 100 expects to hold this event for a different clusters of professions in the future. REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3A1RUC3 3. APA Justice Newsletter Web Page Moved to New Website As part of its continuing migration to a new website under construction, we have moved the Newsletter webpage to https://www.apajusticetaskforce.org/newsletters . Content of the existing website will remain, but it will no longer be updated. We value your feedback about the new web page. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF October 15, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #193: 7/3 Meeting; Affirmative Action; Florida Law; Pew Study; Rice Names AVPs; More #193: 7/3 Meeting; Affirmative Action; Florida Law; Pew Study; Rice Names AVPs; More In This Issue #193 REMINDER: 2023/07/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Affirmative Action in College Admissions: What Have We Won? What Have We Lost? DOJ Says Florida Law is Unconstitutional Relatively Few Asian Americans Say They’re Well-informed About Asian History In The U.S. Rice University Names AVPs for Research Security, Technology Transfer News and Activities for the Communities Back View PDF July 3, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #16 Dr. Zweig's Presentation; Brennan Center Inaugural Webinar; Rep. Meng Resolution #16 Dr. Zweig's Presentation; Brennan Center Inaugural Webinar; Rep. Meng Resolution Back View PDF September 18, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

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. November 1, 2018 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 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. Previous Next 1. DOJ launched China Initiative

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.

Chinese Americans are increasingly finding themselves targeted by the US in what has become the new "Red Scare." August 27, 2019 On August 27, 2019, the South China Morning Post reported on the current state of fear of a new "Red Scare" and the fight including APA Justice against the targeting of Chinese Americans. "As more Chinese Americans find themselves targeted in the increasingly bitter stand-off between Beijing and Washington, legislators, community groups and legal experts are pushing back in hopes of sending a message that enough is enough," the report said. "The US has arrested scientists of Chinese origin on industrial espionage and other charges, and multiple times the cases have been dropped for lack of evidence." "Chinese-Americans readily acknowledge that Beijing targets people of Chinese descent and that the US has every right to defend itself. But a disproportionate number of recent cases end up snaring innocent people targeted through racial profiling, eroding constitutional guarantees and wreaking havoc with individual lives and the community’s reputation." "Many scientists and academics of Chinese descent also end up accused of such violations as using pornography, cheating on expenses or making inaccurate disclosures to investigators when prosecutors fail to find evidence of links to China... There’s more collateral damage than protecting against espionage." "There are some legitimate concerns, but they are inflated, and Chinese Americans are being demonised. They’re collateral damage, like children caught in a broken marriage..." Ongoing efforts call for greater accountability over the security establishment, raising public awareness, continuing to promote understanding and dialogue, building community unity and coalitions, providing training, and taking legal actions against discrimination and wrongful arrest." Read the entire report here . Chinese Americans are increasingly finding themselves targeted by the US in what has become the new "Red Scare." Previous Next Activists Including APA Justice Resist New "Red Scare"

5. The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" 2020-2022 China Initiative Wednesday, June 23, 2021 On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict. After two years of failing to find any evidence of economic espionage, federal prosecutors built a case against Professor Hu rooted in racial bias and profiling under the Department of Justice’s “China Initiative.” This is a telling outcome for the first case of a university professor tried under the “China Initiative,” indicating the deep flaws in the investigations, surveillance, and other efforts under this initiative. The defense attorney for Professor Hu will provide a briefing of the trial. Civil rights organizations, the academic community, and local community leaders, who organized activities to support Professor Hu and his family, will speak out on their concerns with the “China Initiative” and the deeply concerning investigation and surveillance of Professor Hu. We will also hear actions being taken by Congress. Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #375 2/2 Meeting; GAO on Agency Safeguards; Unjust Alex Pretti Death; ICE Targets Hmongs;+ #375 2/2 Meeting; GAO on Agency Safeguards; Unjust Alex Pretti Death; ICE Targets Hmongs;+ In This Issue #375 · 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · GAO: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination · Alex Pretti: Another U.S. Citizen Shot Dead in Minneapolis · Hmong Americans Among ICE Targets · News and Activities for the Communities 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2026, starting at 1:55 pm ET. Rep. Judy Chu , Chair Emerita of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, will deliver a New Year of the Fire Horse message and a review of 2025 via video, in addition to updates from: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are honored by and welcome the following confirmed distinguished speakers: · Frank Wu , President, Queen’s College, City University of New York · Rosie Levine , Executive Director, US-China Education Trust · Elizabeth Rao , daughter of Dr. Jane Wu, and Attorney Tom Geoghegan , Despres, Schwartz, & Geoghegan, Ltd. The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the Co-Organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . ***** The deadline for signing the coalition letter by faculty members to support justice & honor the memory of Dr. Jane Wu is January 29, 2026, 12 pm ET. Effective January 1, 2026, Dr. Steven Pei has stepped down from his role as Co-Organizer of APA Justice. As a result, Dr. Pei no longer represents APA Justice. Please direct all APA Justice matters to Jeremy Wu and Vincent Wang, Co-Organizers. We thank Dr. Pei for his dedicated service over the past few years and wish him continued success in the future. GAO: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Report 26-107544, “ Research Security: Agencies Should Assess Safeguards Against Discrimination ,” in response to concerns raised by members of Congress regarding potential discrimination in federal agencies' research security reviews. The report examines whether federal agencies ensure that their research security processes are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. While efforts to counter improper foreign influence are essential to protecting taxpayer-funded research, universities, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders have warned that these initiatives risk disproportionately targeting certain demographic groups—particularly scientists of Chinese or Asian descent. GAO identified five core safeguards necessary to prevent discrimination in research security processes: · Transparent improper foreign influence review processes. · Collection and use of demographic data to assess agency processes. · Multiple levels of review in improper foreign influence reviews. · Training agency staff in nondiscrimination practices. · Leadership commitment to nondiscrimination. GAO assessed the implementation of these safeguards across five federal agencies—DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH, and NSF—which provided the largest share of extramural federal research funding in FY 2023 (October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023). The report concludes that agencies must balance the need to protect federally funded research from improper foreign influence with their legal and ethical obligation to ensure nondiscrimination. Systematic assessment of safeguards, GAO found, is essential to providing meaningful assurance that discriminatory practices do not occur. GAO also issued seven formal recommendations to improve transparency, documentation, and oversight of nondiscrimination safeguards. These recommendations are publicly posted, tracked online, and will be updated as agencies take action to implement them. GAO Contact: Hilary Benedict , Acting Director, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, at benedicth@gao.gov GAO Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107544 APA Justice will continue to analyze the findings and provide updates on the implementation and implications of this report. Alex Pretti: Another U.S. Citizen Shot Dead in Minneapolis According to multiple media reports, the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti , a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, during a federal immigration enforcement action on January 24, 2026 has become a major national story, prompting protests, legal action, and bipartisan calls for accountability. Pretti was shot multiple times by two U.S. Border Patrol agents in south Minneapolis as he filmed and attempted to assist a woman during an enforcement operation. Pretti’s death occurred 17 days after Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE agent. A third, non-fatal shooting involved a man wounded in the leg on January 14. The shooting locations for Good and Pretti in Minneapolis were about one mile apart. Federal authorities initially claimed that Pretti “approached” agents with a handgun. However, widely circulated video footage and eyewitness accounts indicate that he was holding a phone—not a weapon—and was attempting to help another person when he was tackled and killed. Pretti was a lawful gun owner with a valid permit, had no criminal history, and was widely described by family, neighbors, and colleagues as compassionate and deeply committed to caring for others, particularly veterans. Public response has been swift and substantial. A GoFundMe campaign established for Pretti’s family surpassed $1 million within days, reflecting widespread outrage and community support . Editorial coverage has also been sharply critical. A Washington Post editorial framed Pretti’s death as emblematic of broader concerns about the overreach and expanding role of federal immigration enforcement in U.S. cities and the erosion of civil liberties during the Trump administration’s second term, underscoring inconsistencies in official accounts and the urgent need for transparency and independent review. The Military.com profile further highlighted Pretti’s character and service, focusing on his work as a VA nurse and his concern about immigration enforcement practices. The report noted that local law enforcement leaders rejected the federal narrative of events and called for a cooperative, independent investigation to establish what occurred. Amid conflicting accounts and concerns that federal authorities restricted state investigators’ access to the scene, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison , joined by state and local officials, filed a lawsuit to preserve all evidence related to the killing. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security and its components from altering or destroying evidence. The lawsuit has intensified national scrutiny of federal law-enforcement accountability and reinforced public demands for a full, independent investigation. Members of Congress from both parties have also responded forcefully. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) described the incident as “incredibly disturbing” and called for a joint federal-state investigation, warning that the credibility of ICE and DHS is at stake. Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) urged a “thorough and impartial investigation,” while Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) emphasized that immigration agents “do not have carte blanche” in the use of force. On the Democratic side, Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn.) accused federal authorities of a potential cover-up, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned that DHS funding could face opposition absent comprehensive oversight. Several House members, including Representatives Michael McCaul and Andrew Garbarino , have called for hearings and formal review of immigration enforcement practices. O n January 27, 2026, the Trump administration announced that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota to oversee ICE operations in the state as Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and several other Border Patrol agents are expected to move out of Minneapolis. Bovino has been stripped of his title “commander at large” of the Border Patrol and will return to his former job as chief patrol agent along part of the U.S.-Mexico border, where he is expected to retire soon. Two agents were put on administrative leave. Within hours of Pretti’s death, Bovino asserted that Pretti “wanted to … massacre law enforcement,” while DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon and acting “violently” toward officers. Neither provided supporting evidence, and their statements were contradicted by available video footage. A federal judge in Minnesota has ordered the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd M. Lyons , to personally appear in court and warned of possible contempt proceedings, citing ICE’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered bond hearings for detained immigrants. Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz said the agency has repeatedly flouted dozens of court orders, including by extending detentions or transferring detainees out of state despite explicit judicial directives. Calling the situation “extraordinary,” Schiltz said lesser measures had failed, setting up a potential confrontation between the federal judiciary and the Trump administration amid a surge of ICE enforcement in the Minneapolis region that has overwhelmed local courts and drawn sharp judicial criticism of the government’s conduct. Taken together, the public reaction, legal action, and congressional response underscore the national significance of Alex Pretti’s tragic death—and the rapidly growing demand for accountability, transparency, and clear limits on federal law-enforcement authority. Hmong Americans Among ICE Targets According to NBC News on January 21, 2026, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her , the city’s first Hmong and Asian American mayor, said it was “heartbreaking” to witness recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota, including the arrest of Hmong American U.S. citizen ChongLy Scott Thao and the fatal shooting of another U.S. citizen, Renee Good , during a separate operation. Speaking to KARE just days after taking office, Her said, “Nobody ever comes into an office and within the third day of being in office there’s an ICE shooting,” adding that moments like this define leadership: “This is the moment in which you are asked to lead, and so you step up and you lead.” St. Paul is home to the nation’s largest urban Hmong population, and Her said the incidents have deeply shaken that community. Her described watching video of Thao being removed from his home in freezing conditions as particularly disturbing, noting her personal connection to the family. “It was heartbreaking to watch somebody get dragged out of their home,” she said. “I don’t know how anybody looking at that could ever justify the treatment of another human being that way.” Thao’s family said federal agents did not present a warrant or ask for identification and disputed DHS claims that the operation targeted suspected sex offenders living at the residence. Her said she has since received “firsthand, personal accounts” from constituents describing aggressive enforcement tactics, including agents “going door to door” and “targeting you by the way that you look and the way that you sound.” The clash has escalated into lawsuits by Minnesota cities and the state to halt federal deployments, followed by Justice Department subpoenas of state and local leaders—developments that underscore intensifying tensions over immigration enforcement, civil liberties, and federal-local authority. Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/4qKFS5g News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/01/29-30 The Jimmy Carter Forum on U.S.-China Relations2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/02/03 The Equity Pulse with Frank Wu 2026/02/17 Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" 2026/03/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" WHAT : Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative "Personal Marketing and Mentorship" WHEN : February 17, 2026, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm ET WHERE : Webinar HOST : Committee of 100 Moderator: Peter Young , Committee of 100 Board Member and New York Regional Chair, and Chair of the Asian American Career Ceilings Initiative Speakers : · Raj Gupta , Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors, Johns Hopkins GUPTA-KLINSKY India Institute; Former CEO, Rohm and Hass · Bob Lee , Chairman of the Board, Blue Shield of California · Deb Liu , former President & CEO of Ancestry DESCRIPTION : Throughout the many events C100 has held over the years, one of the observations that comes out repeatedly is the importance of engaging in effective personal marketing, having a strong network inside and outside of the organizations that you are part of, and developing mentors. This event will feature insights from three accomplished panelists who have expertise on this topic from their current professional responsibilities as well as their own personal careers. REGISTRATION : https://c100-2-17-2026.eventbrite.com # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF January 29, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #290 Special Edition: McCarthyism and The Good, Bad, and Ugly of The Media #290 Special Edition: McCarthyism and The Good, Bad, and Ugly of The Media In This Issue #290 · Rise and Fall of McCarthyism with The Media · Historical Media Bias Against U.S. Persons of Asian Origin · Role of Media in The Wen Ho Lee Case and The Yanping Chen Case · Media's Role in a Modern McCarthyism - The "China Initiative" · McCarthyism Expanding to Beyond Scientists · News and Activities for the Communities During "China Week" in September 2024, Representative Judy Chu , Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), took the House floor to denounce efforts to revive the "China Initiative," calling it a New McCarthyism.This is a special edition on McCarthyism and The Good, Bad, and Ugly Roles of The Media. Rise and Fall of McCarthyism with The Media According to a PBS report on McCarthyism from August 23, 2006, in the late 1940s and 1950s, America was gripped by fears of communism’s spread, particularly in Eastern Europe and China. Capitalizing on these anxieties, on February 9, 1950, 41-year-old Senator Joseph McCarthy delivered his infamous "Enemies from Within" speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, claiming to have a list of 205 "card-carrying" communists in the U.S. government. Although he never substantiated this claim, it fueled the Red Scare and set the stage for McCarthyism, an era of intense political repression and paranoia.The media played a significant role in amplifying and spreading McCarthyism. Newspapers, radio, and television often reported McCarthy's accusations uncritically, lending credibility to his unverified claims. For instance, the New York Times covered McCarthy’s “205 communists” allegation without questioning its validity. Historian Margaret Brennan noted that McCarthy’s numbers changed frequently, saying, “he had no list. He had no names. It was all a big lie." Yet, the impact was horrific, 6,000 federal employees left the government in the last two years of the Harry S. Truman Administration. At the end of the McCarthy era, "there was never anybody in government that they could prove to be a card-carrying communist," Brennan said.Sensational headlines and broadcast coverage heightened public fear, reinforcing McCarthy’s portrayal of Communism as a pressing internal threat. Television brought the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings and the Red Scare directly into American homes, magnifying McCarthy’s influence. The McCarthy-Army hearings, televised from April to June 1954, marked a turning point. Over 36 days, an estimated 188 hours were broadcast, reaching a large national audience. During these hearings, Army counsel Joseph Welch famously rebuked McCarthy, asking, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” This moment is widely viewed as the beginning of McCarthy’s downfall. Most journalists initially refrained from challenging McCarthy due to Cold War tensions and fears of being labeled Communist sympathizers. However, broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow played a pivotal role in countering McCarthyism. On March 9, 1954, Murrow’s See It Now broadcast exposed McCarthy’s fear-based tactics, marking a major turning point in public opinion.The following is a transcript for a 2-minute excerpt of Murrow's broadcast: "No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men—not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation, we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom—wherever it continues to exist in the world—but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully. Cassius was right: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck." Edward R. Murrow profoundly shaped broadcast journalism, setting standards with his commitment to factual reporting, democratic principles, and the press’s role as a vigilant watchdog. The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University continues this legacy, promoting ethical journalism, strategic communication, and digital media, all inspired by Murrow's unwavering dedication to integrity and accountability in the media. References and Links Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University: website 2017/04/23 YouTube : Edward R. Murrow - See It Now (March 9, 1954) (2:02)2014/12/16 C-SPAN : Senator Joe McCarthy's "Enemies from Within" Speech (14:59)2006/08/23 PBS : McCarthyism Historical Media Bias Against U.S. Persons of Asian Origin Throughout U.S. history, media have often depicted Americans and immigrants of Asian origin through biased and derogatory stereotypes, particularly during times of geopolitical tension. Their coverage has fueled harmful public perceptions and policies with lasting impacts on Asian communities.Notwithstanding the 61-year Chinese Exclusion era (1882-1943) and the Alien Land Law period from the first state law in California in 1913 to the mid 1950s, American newspapers contributed to the anti-Japanese sentiment by portraying Japanese Americans as disloyal spies or saboteurs. Headlines warned of a “Fifth Column” within the U.S., stoking fear and prejudice. This coverage, often based on unsubstantiated claims, helped garner public support for the internment of 120,000 persons of Japanese heritage, about two thirds of them U.S. citizens.No Japanese American was ever proven to have committed espionage for Japan during World War II, despite extensive U.S. government investigations.Before his children books, Dr. Seuss ( Theodor Seuss Geisel ) worked as a political cartoonist and propagandist during World War II, creating cartoons and illustrations that were published in newspapers and used in military training films. One of his infamous cartoons on February 13, 1942, shows Japanese Americans lined up as the "Fifth Column" along the West Coast, awaiting "the signal from home," playing into widespread fear and prejudice and helped to justify Japanese American internment and other discriminatory measures. On February 21, 1942, two days after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing internment, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial endorsing it, asserting that Japanese Americans posed a national security risk. Along with other outlets, the LA Times shaped public opinion by promoting fear-based narratives questioning Japanese American loyalty.Seventy-five years later, on February 19, 2017, the LA Times formally recanted its 1942 editorials. Acknowledging the paper's role in promoting internment, it expressed regret for fueling anti-Japanese sentiment and drew parallels with current issues of xenophobia, discrimination, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. The 2017 editorial warned against repeating such injustices, highlighting the need to protect civil liberties for all. References and Links Wikipedia: Dr. Seuss 2017/02/19 LA Times editorial: Looking Back with Shame 2012/02/21 The Daily Mirror : Times Editorial Praises Japanese Evacuation Role of Media in The Wen Ho Lee Case and The Yanping Chen Case History repeated itself before the LA Times issued its 2017 editorial.On March 6, 1999, the New York Times identified Chinese American nuclear scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee as a suspect in alleged espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Using alarmist language, anonymous sources, and unsubstantiated allegations, the report relied heavily on stereotypes and ethnic background, fueling widespread public suspicion of Dr. Lee and, by extension, other Chinese Americans in the scientific community.. Dr. Lee was arrested nine months after the New York Times report and imprisoned in solitary confinement for nine months before charges were dropped. U.S. District Judge James Parker apologized to Dr. Lee, condemning the government’s handling of the case.On September 26, 2000, the New York Times published an editorial acknowledging its role and errors in uncritically accepting government claims, but it stopped short of a full apology.In 2006, Dr. Lee settled a privacy lawsuit, accusing government agencies of leaking sensitive information. The U.S. government paid $895,000, and five media organizations—the New York Times , Washington Post , Los Angeles Times , ABC News , and Associated Press —contributed $750,000 to protect their reporters from being compelled to disclose their sources. Dr. Lee’s case highlighted issues in journalistic ethics and transparency, but similar patterns emerged when Dr. Yanping Chen , a Chinese American academic and founder of the University of Management and Technology in Virginia, became the target of a federal investigation in 2010. Although no charges were filed, leaked details of the closed investigation surfaced in a series of Fox News reports in 2017, making misleading insinuations to accuse her of spying for China.In 2018, Dr. Chen filed a lawsuit against federal agencies, alleging Privacy Act violations and racial profiling. Her case raised broader concerns about government leaks and anti-Asian prejudice. Dr. Chen subpoenaed Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge to identify her sources. The U.S. District Court imposed a fine of $800 per day until Herridge complied. Herridge has appealed.On July 29, 2024, the Asian American Legal and Education Defense Fund (AALDEF) and a coalition of 11 organizations filed a 43-page amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals in support of Dr. Chen. The brief addresses issues of racial prejudice and the negative stereotyping of Asian Americans, particularly in the context of government actions against Dr. Chen.The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold a hearing of oral arguments on Dr. Chen's case on November 18, 2024. References and Links CourtListener: Chen v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1:18-cv-03074) 2024/08/07 AADELF: The Red-Baiting of Dr. Chen and the Dangerous Target It Puts on All Asian Americans 2024/07/29 Chen v FBI 1:18-cv-03074: Brief of Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Asian American Advocacy Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee 2006/06/03 Washington Post : Wen Ho Lee Settles Privacy Lawsuit 2003/01/08 Wen Ho Lee and Helen Zia: My Country Versus Me: The First-Hand Account by the Los Alamos Scientist Who Was Falsely Accused of Being a Spy 2001/02/04 New York Times : The Making of a Suspect: The Case of Wen Ho Lee 2000/09/26 New York Times : From The Editors; The Times and Wen Ho Lee 2000/09/14 New York Times: Statement by Judge in Los Alamos Case, With Apology for Abuse of Power 1999/03/06 New York Times: BREACH AT LOS ALAMOS: A special report.; China Stole Nuclear Secrets For Bombs, U.S. Aides Say Media's Role in a Modern McCarthyism - The "China Initiative" In March 1950, Herb Block , a political cartoonist known as "Herblock" for the Washington Post , coined the term "McCarthyism" shortly after Senator Joseph McCarthy delivered his "Enemies Within Us" speech. This term describes the practice of making unfounded accusations of subversion, disloyalty, or treason without sufficient evidence. Today, McCarthyism symbolizes any campaign or movement that seeks to silence or punish dissent or perceived disloyalty through fear and intimidation, rather than through fair, evidence-based processes.Launched by the Department of Justice in 2018, the "China Initiative" reflects contemporary McCarthyism through its reliance on broad suspicion and racial profiling under the guise of national security. It was joined in effect by the National Institutes of Health in the name of research security and integrity. These initiatives then shifted focus from security concerns to profiling Chinese academics and scientists, fostering an atmosphere of fear and a chilling effect within academic and research communities. Many researchers of Chinese descent reported feeling unfairly targeted solely due to their ethnicity or international connections.The consequences of the "China Initiative" have been severe; even when charges were eventually dropped, individuals faced damaged careers, personal trauma, financial ruin, and even loss of life. Hundreds, if not thousands or more, of Asian Americans and immigrants, particularly those of Chinese origin, have been subjected to surveillance, investigations, and threats of prosecution. Many more endure daily assaults, hate incidents, and discrimination as a result. The media's role in the "China Initiative" brought a range of both positive and negative impacts. Jamie Satterfield , an investigative reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel , played a crucial role in highlighting the wrongful accusations against Dr. Anming Hu , a University of Tennessee professor prosecuted under the “China Initiative.” Her reporting exposed significant flaws in the government’s case, illustrating how the FBI targeted Hu based on unfounded suspicions and employed aggressive tactics, including attempts to coerce him into espionage.Satterfield documented the trial proceedings in 2021 meticulously, revealing key admissions from FBI agents about false accusations and fabricated evidence against Hu. Her work not only drew national attention to the injustices faced by Hu but also sparked broader discussions about racial profiling, due process, and fairness within the framework of the "China Initiative," emphasizing its detrimental impact on innocent Chinese American academics.On December 2, 2021, MIT Technology Review published two investigative reports. The first report revealed that the "China Initiative" deviated from its national security goals. Key findings include a lack of official definition for the initiative, a shift from economic espionage to “research integrity” issues, and a high dismissal rate for cases. Notably, only about 25% of those charged were convicted, with about 90% of defendants being of Chinese heritage. The second investigative report highlighted gaps in the information provided by DOJ. MIT Technology Review constructed a database to track every case made public under the "China Initiative." Shortly after MIT Technology Review requested comments, DOJ updated its webpage, removing cases that contradicted its narrative of success. Less than three months after the MIT Technology Review reports, DOJ announced the formal end of the "China Initiative."Both Satterfield and MIT Technology Review exemplify the positive role of investigative journalism, utilizing facts and evidence to expose the overreach, profiling, and flaws of the initiative. Their efforts raised public awareness and sparked dialogue about racial bias in government investigations, holding agencies accountable and prompting policymakers and civil rights organizations to reconsider the initiative's efficacy and ethics, ultimately contributing to its termination in 2022.In contrast, some media outlets resorted to alarmist and sensational language, reinforcing stereotypes and depicting Asian Americans and immigrants—particularly those of Chinese descent—as potential threats. Headlines often emphasized national security concerns without adequate context, exacerbating public fears about espionage and fostering an atmosphere of suspicion. By uncritically repeating government statements, some of these outlets lent the initiative unwarranted credibility. They frequently overlooked the scientific and academic contributions of Chinese and Chinese American professionals, sidelining their valuable work and contributions to the American society. References and Links APA Justice: 11. MIT Technology Review Investigative Reports CourtListener: United States v. Hu (TV1) (3:20-cr-00021) 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review : The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it. 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review : We built a database to understand the China Initiative. Then the government changed its records. 2021/06/13 Knox News : Trial reveals federal agents falsely accused a UT professor born in China of spying McCarthyism Expanding to Beyond Scientists There are continuing attempts by Republican members in Congress to reinstate the "China Initiative" or under a different name. Alien land laws are being revived and expanded at both the federal and state levels that will risk reinforcing racial discrimination."Enemies Within Us" against immigrants in a nation of immigrants has resurfaced as a prominent topic in the lead-up to the November 5, 2024, U.S. presidential election, framing a focus on Chinese influence in America. Media, politicians, and campaign ads are again promoting anti-Asian rhetoric and harmful political narratives and stereotypes about Chinese Americans as perpetual foreigners or national security risks. On September 3, 2024, The Washington Post released a report titled "How China Extended Its Repression into an American City," alleging Chinese government interference within U.S. communities. As explained in the Asia Times, "The Washington Post ’s Witch Hunt on Chinese Americans" lacks evidence. An October 4 opinion argues that the Washington Post report fosters distrust toward Chinese American communities by selective use of biased sources—primarily anti-CCP activists and U.S. government entities. By failing to represent voices within the Chinese American community who have diverse views on China, the opinion contends, the report risks fostering harmful stereotypes and echoing historical patterns of profiling minority groups based on geopolitics. A more balanced approach would involve perspectives from diaspora organizations that may experience complex, often nonpolitical relationships with Chinese institutions. It also warns against blanket assumptions about the loyalties of Chinese Americans, potentially leading to unfounded public suspicion of these communities.On October 21, 2024, a Wall Street Journal report alleged China of using hometown organizations in New York City’s Chinatown to influence local communities, pressure Chinese Americans, and advance its political goals. Without evidence of specific influence activities, Representative Grace Meng , the only Chinese American congresswoman from New York, was implicated in the Wall Street Journal report because of her association with Chinatown and hometown organizations.Chinatowns in the U.S. emerged as ethnic enclaves largely because of social, economic, and political conditions in the U.S. in the mid-19th century dating back to the Qing Dynasty. These communities offered safety, employment, and a cultural connection to home for new immigrants facing systemic discrimination and harsh labor conditions. Discriminatory laws forced segregation and led to the establishment of Chinatowns and hometown associations as self-sustaining neighborhoods where immigrants could find mutual support, housing, work opportunities, and Chinese-owned businesses, fostering community resilience against external hostilities. Guilt by association, the unfair assignment of blame to individuals based solely on their affiliations rather than on concrete evidence, was a central tactic of McCarthyism. While WWII-era suspicions focused on a supposed "Fifth Column" of internal threats, the "Thousand Grains of Sand" theory arose during the Wen Ho Lee case in the 1990s, insinuating alleged widespread infiltration efforts by Chinese agents. The term evolved to "Non-traditional Collectors" as the "China Initiative" began, with scrutiny directed toward Chinese and Chinese American scientists and academics suspected of espionage.Now , with media coverage increasingly emphasizing potential links to foreign influence in Chinese American communities, guilt by association appears to be broadening beyond scientists and researchers. With the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal already linking community organizations or elected officials to foreign interference based on limited or circumstantial connections, guilt by association, or a new McCarthyism, may become more pervasive again with the assistance of media. "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason," - Edward R. Murrow References and Links 2024/10/21 Wall Street Journal : How Beijing Recruited New York Chinatowns for Influence Campaign 2024/10/04 Asia Times opinion : The Washington Post’s witch hunt on Chinese Americans 2024/09/03 Washington Post : How China extended its repression into an American city News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events:2024/11/03 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/06 Asian American Women in Media and Music2024/11/10 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/12 Threats to International Engagement and Academic Freedom2024/11/14 An Advice and Networking Event (Financial Services, Investing and Consulting)2024/11/15 Yangtze-Mississippi Regional Dialogue2024/11/15-17 AAASE Inaugural Annual Summit2024/11/17 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/11/18 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/11/24 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. NOTE: Because the regular scheduled day falls on the eve of Election Day, we have moved the next APA Justice monthly meeting to Monday, November 18, 2024. The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎 , Vincent Wang 王文奎 , and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . 2. APA Justice Newsletter Web Page Moved to New Website As part of its continuing migration to a new website under construction, we have moved the Newsletter webpage to https://www.apajusticetaskforce.org/newsletters . Content of the existing website will remain, but it will no longer be updated. We value your feedback about the new web page. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF October 30, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Waves of Immigrants Journey through the treacherous and brave path of the Asian Americans who came to the U.S. before us. At times, arriving freely and by choice. At times, arriving forcibly, coerced, or out of necessity. And for decades, excluded and barred from entry. Sometimes with a choice to stay, sometimes with no choice but to stay. Through the lens of the earliest surviving films and the eyes and pens of historical illustrators and photographers, see how, together as a community, they endured politics, imperialism, capitalistic development, and xenophobia. How their tenacity helped shape immigrant rights – not just for Asian Americans – but for many who are citizens of America today. Produced by 1990 Institute. Unfortunately, America has a long and complex history with race, and this includes racial discrimination and profiling people of Asian ethnicity. From the “Red Scare” after World War II to the modern-day U.S. Department of Justice “China Initiative,” Chinese American scientists, scholars, and students pose “whole-of-society” threats to fellow Americans. Today, the “China Initiative” has racially targeted Chinese Americans in overzealous prosecutions which have resulted in numerous dismissals. This history is important not only to law enforcement but for young future leaders of America that Maryland educates. Without an understanding of the history and contributions of groups such as Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, our country is bound to make the same mistakes that have roots in racial discrimination. While the United States is not a perfect nation, through our representative government we have the capacity to learn and improve from successes and mistakes. Our continuing success starts by educating our young people. We must ensure that like our government and our society, our history books are representative. They should represent the rich experiences of all Americans. We hope that as students learn this history, they create a kinder and more understanding classroom. We hope they see just how special it is that their classmates look different and have different backgrounds and are able to put this into historical context. This is where our better future lies. The APA Justice statement concludes by quoting President Reagan in his last presidential speech, “[y]ou can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.” Let us go forth and teach the history of all Americans and understand the richness of all of our American histories. Illinois and New Jersey are the first two states to require teaching of Asian American history in public schools. On February 16, 2022, APA Justice submitted a statement to the Maryland Senate in strong support of SB 462 to develop and implement an expanded American history curriculum in Maryland public schools. In the statement, APA Justice expressed firm belief that studying history allows us to learn from the past and understand the present, from which we can strive to build a better future. Other than Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, we are a nation of immigrants. We came and continue to come from all corners of the world with different cultures and backgrounds. Some came earlier than others, and some came more willing than others. While some may seek to divide us, we must understand that our diversity is our strength, not our weakness. In fact, unique among the world’s nations, America’s strength comes from our diversity. While other countries are bound by ethnicity, Americans are bound together by a shared set of principles and ideals. In each of our own ways, we have contributed to the creation and the growth of this nation, fresh with purpose and ideals, as well as with fear and sacrifice. In order to empower our young people to be leaders in tomorrow's world, they must understand the history of all Americans. Asian American History is American History

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

On March 8, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen, calling for the release of a report on the Department of Justice's review of the “China Initiative.” March 8, 2022 On March 8, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen, calling for the release of a report on the Department of Justice's (DOJ’s) review of the “China Initiative.” In the letter, we express our support for his announcement ending the “China Initiative” on February 23, 2022, and our appreciation for his 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. For transparency and to ensure an accurate understanding of the changes, we request the public release of a report memorializing the findings of his review of the program that began in November 2021. 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 will supplement Mr. Olsen's speech for the communities to move forward. It is common for the government to produce a written report to memorialize an important review such as that done for the “China Initiative.” It usually includes the defined scope, issues examined, process and methodology used, findings, recommended changes, decisions, and plans for implementation. Such a report would help to clarify, for example, the following questions: What was the scope of the “China Initiative” review? What is the new supervising role for the National Security Division? Will DOJ-wide implicit bias training be restarted? How thorough were existing prosecutions and investigations reviewed? Did the review cover allegations of DOJ and FBI misconduct? Harms and wounds inflicted during and prior to the "China Initiative" are deep and wide spread in the Asian American and scientific communities, especially for academics of Chinese descent. It is imperative to start the process of healing and restoration of trust in the law enforcement and judicial system with transparency, accountability, and community engagement in moving forward. letter2mattolsen_20220308 .pdf Download PDF • 244KB On March 8, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen, calling for the release of a report on the Department of Justice's review of the “China Initiative.” Previous Next APA Justice Calls for Release of Report on Review of "China Initiative"