Newsletter - #184: Section 702 Violations; Paid Interns; Alien Land Bills; DeSantis; Community News #184: Section 702 Violations; Paid Interns; Alien Land Bills; DeSantis; Community News In This Issue #184 Warrantless Surveillance - More Violations of Section 702 Revealed APA Justice Seeks Up to Two Motivated Paid Interns Latest Developments on Discriminatory Alien Land Bills Florida Governor DeSantis Criticized for Mandating Asian American History While Banning Courses on "Systemic Racism" News and Events for the Communities Warrantless Surveillance - More Violations of Section 702 Revealed On May 19, 2023, multiple media including AP News , Washington Post , and New York Times , FBI analysts improperly and repeatedly used a warrantless surveillance program to search for information about hundreds of Americans who came under scrutiny in connection with two politically charged episodes of civil unrest: the protests after the 2020 police killing of George Floyd and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The violations occurred more than 278,000 times and were detailed in a secret court order issued last year by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has legal oversight of the U.S. government’s spy powers. The surveillance program, known as Section 702 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), empowers the government to collect, without a warrant and from American companies like Google and AT&T, the communications of foreigners abroad who are targeted for intelligence purposes — even when they are talking with or about Americans.Intelligence and law enforcement officials can search the database of communications intercepted under Section 702 using the names or other identifiers of Americans, but only under certain circumstances. The FBI has repeatedly failed to comply with those limits.Section 702 expires at the end of the year unless it is renewed by Congress.Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime critic of what he says is dangerous overreach by U.S. intelligence officials, decried what he called the “shocking abuses of FISA Section 702.” He said that the abuses have been going on for years and that officials are still withholding key details from the public. “There is important, secret information about how the government has interpreted Section 702 that Congress and the American people need to see before the law is renewed,” Wyden said in a written statement.“You can tell your department, not a chance in hell we’re going to be reauthorizing that thing without some major, major reforms,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah told Attorney General Merrick B. Garland at a Justice Department oversight hearing earlier this year.“Today’s disclosures underscore the need for Congress to rein in the FBI’s egregious abuses of this law, including warrantless searches using the names of people who donated to a congressional candidate,” said Patrick Toomey , deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “These unlawful searches undermine our core constitutional rights and threaten the bedrock of our democracy. It’s clear the FBI can’t be left to police itself.”The ACLU represents Professor Xiaoxing Xi , who is suing the government over its dismissed prosecution of him for supposedly sharing sensitive technology with scientists in China. New York Police Department Officer Baimadajie Angwang reportedly also fell victim to Section 702 under the now-defunct "China Initiative."Privacy and civil rights advocates have revived a proposal to require the government to obtain a warrant from the surveillance court before it may search the Section 702 repository using an American’s identifiers. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, who backs that idea, said the violations disclosed in the opinion, particularly for the political campaign donors and those arrested in connection with the racial justice protests, showed the necessity of that proposal. “The opinion provides frightening proof of the need for a warrant requirement before agencies conduct U.S. person queries,” she said. Elizabeth Goitein has accepted APA Justice's invitation to speak on this topic at the June 5 monthly meeting. Please send a request to contact@apajustice.org if you wish to join the by-invitation-only meeting. Read more about warrantless surveillance and Section 702 at https://bit.ly/3O6T43Q APA Justice Seeks Up to Two Motivated Paid Interns APA Justice is looking for up to two motivated paid website design and content management interns to join our team for the summer months. The successful candidates will assist in designing, developing, and maintaining the APA Justice website at https://www.apajustice.org/ . The interns will work closely with the co-organizers and other members of the organization to ensure that the website reflects our mission and values and provides a user-friendly experience for all visitors. These are paid internship positions that allow for working remotely and flexible hours, and option to extend to part time positions beyond the summer. Responsibilities include the innovative development of a virtual library and related content. The job description is here: https://bit.ly/438Oh6c . Interested candidates should send their resume and questions to contact@apajustice.org . Cornell University is Seeking A Research Associate & Program Coordinator for Its China U.S. Policy (CUSP) Initiative. This is a 2-year term appointment with benefits and the possibility of extension depending on funding. Professor Jessica Chen Weiss is Director. Review of applications will begin June 1. Interviews will take place early to mid-June. The anticipated start date is July 1, 2023 with an end date of June 30, 2025. Learn more about the job and apply at https://bit.ly/3MnFPJz Latest Developments on Discriminatory Alien Land Bills 1. 33 States are Now Known to Have Introduced Alien Land and Property Bills As of May 20, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few have passed and signed into state law; some have died; others are still pending.State-by-state links to the legislations and a companion map are provided as community resources at https://bit.ly/402lG1w . They are collected from multiple sources including APA Justice, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, and crowdsourcing. Due to the dynamic nature of these developments, we plan to update the information periodically. We anticipate the continuation and introduction of alien land and property bills into future state legislative sessions. The map and a list of state legislations are posted at https://bit.ly/402lG1w 2. Alien Land Bill in Alabama - House Bill 379 According to WHNT-TV19 on May 19, 2023, a bill that would have initially prevented Chinese citizens from buying a home in Alabama underwent some major changes after a committee hearing this week. The “Alabama Property Protection Act” changed to ban just government entities from “countries of concern” from buying land near military bases. But some Chinese American Alabamians said they still have some concerns with the new version of the bill. Lily Moore is a realtor in Montgomery and a U.S. citizen living in Alabama for the last 25 years. She said the first version of this bill concerned her not only as someone from China but as a real estate agent who would have had to question homebuyers.“It could be like a Caucasian that looks like an Asian. I think of my job as not a realtor anymore,” Moore said. “It’s like an investigator for FBI.”After she and many others voiced concerns, the bill changed — no longer preventing people from China from buying land in Alabama but targeting instead government entities from countries on a federal sanctions list, including China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.Moore and Linyuan Guo-Brennan with the Central Alabama Association of Chinese Americans said they are glad to see the changes to the bill but are still concerned that the mere listing of the countries could lead to discrimination, even though the bill is now aimed at government actors.“This is one way, or most effective way, to enforce systemic discrimination,” Guo-Brennan said. “The members of the Chinese American community have already feel that we are the political pawns of the two parties playing politics.”The length of the regular Alabama legislative session is limited to 30 meeting days within a period of 105 calendar days. The bill will next be considered by the House to either concur with the substitute bill or make changes. Tuesday May 23 will begin day 24 out of 30 meeting days for the legislative session.Read the WHNT-TV19 report: https://bit.ly/3opbrq7 "Alabama not a sweet home for Asians." According to an opinion published by AL.com on May 18, 2023, at the onset of this Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Heritage Month in May, the House of Representatives in the State of Alabama approved HB-379, also known as the Alabama Property Protection Act. This legislation specifically aims to prohibit Chinese citizens, Chinese companies, and the Chinese government from acquiring property. Such a measure flagrantly infringes upon the civil rights of Chinese individuals residing in the state and demonstrates a blatant disregard for the principles upheld by the Fair Housing Act.It is crucial to halt the ratification of this bill before law-abiding citizens are unjustly deprived of their ability to purchase homes or engage in economic activities. While one may assume that such xenophobic legislation belongs to a bygone era, it is essential to acknowledge that Alien Land Acts have persisted until modern times.During this AAPI Heritage Month, it is essential to celebrate the remarkable achievements and invaluable contributions of the AAPI community. We must resist the regression into xenophobic laws that mirror a bygone century. Our unwavering belief rests upon the establishment of a just and inclusive society that upholds the rights and dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their ethnicity. It is incumbent upon us to reject the existence of discriminatory legislation, as none of us would desire to witness the marginalization of foreign American nationals in their respective countries or the unjust exclusion of American corporations from foreign market investments.The author of the opinion, Dr. Ken Yang, holds an MD and PhD and lives in Birmingham where he has been a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham the past 19 years.Read Dr. Yang's opinion at AL.com : https://bit.ly/3IuxcMl 3. Alien Land Bills in Arizona - Senate Bills 1115, 1112 and House Bill 2376 According to LegiScan and Arizona Capitol Times on March 3, 2023, Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1115 by a margin of 16-14 that would prohibit land sales to the government, companies, and citizens of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Venezuela. The bill was sent to the Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives and failed to advance on a 3-6 vote on March 30, 2023. Arizona SB1112 was introduced on January 19, 2023, to originally target China, but was expanded in the government committee to ban individuals from a list of countries from buying property in Arizona. It passed the committee on a 5-3 vote, but has seen no further action. Arizona House Bill 2376 was introduced on January 18, 2023. It passed the Arizona House on a 43-17 vote on February 22, 2023. The bill is currently pending at the Arizona Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee. 4. Alien Land Bill in Louisiana - House Bill 537 On May 15, 2023, the Civil Law and Procedure Committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives held a hearing that included Louisiana House Bill 537 . High school graduate Abigail Hu 's testimony started at 3:12:45 and ended at 3:16:16. The Louisiana House has scheduled floor debate for May 23, 2023.Watch the Louisiana House of Representatives proceedings: https://bit.ly/3IuWFoG (video 3:34:11). Florida Governor DeSantis Criticized for Mandating Asian American History While Banning Courses on "Systemic Racism" According to a report by NBC News on May 18, 2023, a new law in Florida mandates the teaching of Asian American and Pacific Islander history in public schools. But many Asian Americans are not celebrating, pointing to how other marginalized communities are being affected by the state heavily limiting the instruction of systemic racism and gender identity in the classroom. Asian American academics and civil rights organizations are speaking out after Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill last week, requiring that Asian American and Pacific Islander history to be included in the K-12 curriculum. The measure coincides with another bill signed into law to no longer permit public colleges to spend money on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. It also limits the way race and gender will be taught in the state’s higher education institutions. Gregg Orton , national director of National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, a coalition of dozens of AAPI organizations, said the history law is far from a “win” for the Asian American community, adding that “racial justice can’t be a zero-sum game for communities of color.”“When you advance a bill that uplifts AAPI communities, but don’t want to acknowledge the fact that in the same state, there are real intentional efforts to invisiblize or erase Black history, or [critical race theory], you are on the wrong side of history,” Orton said. “With Florida, it’s hard to draw any other conclusion than they are actively trying to use the Asian American Pacific Islander community as a wedge here.” Make Us Visible, the group that spearheaded the push, has been working on the legislation for more than two years, according to Mimi Chan , president of the Florida chapter. All students in the state, from grades K-12, will "benefit from this legislation because moving forward all histories will be taught together," she said in a statement provided to NBC News.The history mandate would require the teaching of Japanese American incarceration in World War II, immigration, citizenship and the “contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to American society.” Conversely, the anti-Diversity, Equity and Inclusion bill, effective July 1, will ban the teaching of courses that legislators say “distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics.” It also bans “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.” The bills come after state officials rejected an Advanced Placement African American studies course in January, leading the College Board to water down its framework for the curriculum. Pawan Dhingra , president of the Association for Asian American Studies, said that the effort from activists to implement Asian American studies in schools is admirable. However, the greater context around race education in the state can’t be ignored, he said. The language in the higher education bill, particularly its use of “identity politics,” Dhingra said, in part dismisses many groups’ real experiences and meaningful critiques. “What they’re saying is basically denying that there’s just real injustice going on,” he said. Moreover, Asian American history is intertwined and inextricably tied to others’ experiences, challenges and struggles, Russell Jeung , professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University, said. Omitting those aspects of education would create an untruthful representation, he said. Manjusha P. Kulkarni , co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, similarly noted that Asian American experiences cannot be separated from that of Black, Indigenous and other groups, calling into question what “version” of history will be taught in schools. Kulkarni said: “We cannot address racism and hate in a silo. We know that our communities are interconnected.”She added that the history mandate also coincides with DeSantis’ signing of SB264, a law that in part prohibits Chinese nationals who do not have U.S. citizenship from buying property or land in the state. “DeSantis and the Florida officials are not truly interested in seeing our full humanity. And that raises further questions about what the bill signing of AAPI history means,” she said. For now, the experts say, progress is still distant.“I don’t want to discount the eagerness and the desire and hunger for our community to see advancements like this,” Orton said of the history mandate. “But it can’t be done at the expense of others.”Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/3WpTGnu According to multiple media reports including AP News , CBS News , CNN , and New York Times , the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Equality Florida have issued travel advisories for Florida, warning potential tourists that recent laws and policies championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida lawmakers are “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”Florida is one of the most popular states in the U.S. for tourists, and tourism is one of its biggest industries. More than 137.5 million tourists visited Florida last year. Tourism supports 1.6 million full-time and part-time jobs, and visitors spent $98.8 billion in Florida in 2019. News for the Communities 1. For First Time, FBI San Diego’s Special Agent in Charge is Asian American According to Fox5-San Diego on May 18, 2023, for the first time at FBI San Diego, the bureau’s top cop or special agent in charge (SAC) is of Asian American descent. SAC Stacey Moy grew up in San Diego. Moy had humble beginnings as a kid from Solana Beach, a third generation Chinese American whose father worked for the Navy. He found his fit in the U.S. Navy, graduating from the Naval Academy in 1998. He was commissioned and served as an officer in the Surface Warfare and Naval Special Warfare communities. Moy joined the FBI as a special agent in 2004 and served on the SWAT team. He was promoted to top leadership positions in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco before becoming Special Agent in Charge in San Diego. Moy’s second in command is Assistant Special Agent in Charge John Kim , who is Korean American. Only a little over 3% of the FBI special agents are AAPI. The FBI has reportedly created Diversity Advisory Committees to help improve and increase diversity within its rank. Watch and read the Fox5-San Diego report: https://bit.ly/3pZKsSH 2. Asian American Fellows Elected to the National Academy of Sciences In addition to MIT Professor Gang Chen , other known Asian American fellows elected to the 2023 National Academy of Sciences include: Chao, Moses V. ; professor, Department of Cell Biology, Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Physiology, Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York City Lin, Xihong ; coordinating director, program in quantitative genomics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and professor of statistics, Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston Pan, Duojia ; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; and professor and department chair of physiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas Sundaresan, Venkatesan ; Distinguished Professor, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis Ting, Alice ; professor of genetics, biology, and, by courtesy, chemistry, Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Tye, Bik-Kwoon ; professor, molecular biology and genetics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Venkatesh, Akshay ; Robert and Luisa Fernholz Professor, School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J. Wang, Michelle D. ; investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; and James Gilbert White Distinguished Professor of the Physical Sciences, Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Xiao, Shuhai ; professor of geobiology, Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Zeng, Hongkui ; executive vice president and director, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle Zhou, Min ; Walter and Shirley Wang Endowed Chair in US‐China Relations and Communications, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles Read the 2023 National Academy of Sciences announcement: https://bit.ly/3Oz32Lw Subscribe to The APA Justice Newsletter Complete this simple form at https://bit.ly/2FJunJM to subscribe. Please share it with those who wish to be informed and join the fight. View past newsletters here: https://bit.ly/APAJ_Newsletters . Back View PDF May 22, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has protested the politicization and cancellation of an NIH research grant. April 6, 2020 The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) is an international nonprofit scientific and educational organization. With over 11,000 members, made up of students, researchers, educators and industry professionals, the ASBMB is one of the largest molecular life science societies in the world. Founded in 1906, the ASBMB’s mission is to advance the science of biochemistry and molecular biology and to promote the understanding of the molecular nature of life processes. On April 6, 2020, ASBMB issued a position statement on Foreign Influences to Research Integrity . "While ASBMB recognizes the substantial efforts undertaken by federal funding agencies, universities and research institutions to address the issue of foreign influence to research integrity, ... We must strike a balance between protecting research, while continuing to promote international collaboration. " the statement says. "Of particular concern regarding federal agency responses is the lack of guidance and transparency from the NIH. Since instances of foreign influence have come to light in 2018, the NIH has initiated thousands of investigations on scientists who they suspect of intellectual property theft, conflicts of interest, or peer review violations. While some incidents of research violation or intellectual property have been publicized, the NIH has not been transparent with the scientific community about internal changes to their review or oversight process. In addition to the lack of transparency, there have been numerous cases of scientists being wrongfully accused of espionage or intellectual property theft. Fear within the scientific community of being targeted as a result of race or identify has proliferated. The NIH must be transparent about their actions and processes and offer guidelines to the scientific community to appease these fears. " ASBMB has taken further actions to protest the politicization and cancellation of the NIH research grant to the EcoHealth Alliance. See more at NIH Grant Politicized . At the end of August 2020, several media reported a new grant was awarded although there were questions on the conditions possibly imposed in the new grant. The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has protested the politicization and cancellation of an NIH research grant. Previous Next ASBMB Protests Racially Motivated Cancellation of Research Grant

Newsletter - #282 Combating New McCarthyism; AASF Forum With NIH; Dr. Zhijian "James" Chen; More #282 Combating New McCarthyism; AASF Forum With NIH; Dr. Zhijian "James" Chen; More In This Issue #282 · AIP: House Pushes to Resurrect China Initiative · AASF Forum with the National Institutes of Health · Dr. Zhijian “James” Chen Wins “America’s Nobel” · News and Activities for the Communities AIP: House Pushes to Resurrect China Initiative According to the American Institute of Physics (AIP) on September 18, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to reinstate the Justice Department’s China Initiative under a new name. The bill known as H.R. 1398 passed on a vote of 237-180, with support from 214 Republicans and 23 Democrats.The legislation is unlikely to advance in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where the companion bill has only Republican cosponsors. In addition, the White House issued a statement strongly opposing the bill, stating it “could give rise to incorrect and harmful public perceptions that DOJ applies a different standard to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct related to the Chinese people or to American citizens of Chinese descent.”Rising in opposition to the bill, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said that resurrecting the “misguided” China Initiative would represent a “clear step backwards.”“The China Initiative did not just waste valuable resources. If you were a person of Chinese descent working in American higher education, you were a suspect,” said Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. “Rather than keeping America safe, the China Initiative divided workplaces, ruined careers, and contributed to anti-Asian hate at the height of the pandemic,” he added.Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, also took to the House floor in opposition to the bill. She described the China Initiative as “the new McCarthyism,” referring to fears of communist influence in the U.S. during the Cold War that were stoked by Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI). “McCarthyism had deadly effects in the 1950s and so does the China Initiative, harming our country’s competitive edge by casting a chilling effect on our academic community,” Chu said. “While we all want to stop American secrets from being stolen, investigations should be based on evidence of criminal activity, not race and ethnicity.” “This bill would essentially re-establish the DOJ’s harmful and ineffective China Initiative, in all but name,” said Joanna Derman , director of anti-racial profiling, civil rights, and national security for Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, in an email. “Instead of reviving a program that we know led to the racial profiling of Asian immigrant and Asian American scientists, we should be discussing policy solutions that would actually attract and retain top talent in critical STEM fields,” Derman continued. Last week’s vote is not the first time that the House has attempted to reinstate the China Initiative — a similar provision is in the House’s appropriations bill for DOJ. Various advocacy groups representing Asian Americans, such as the Asian American Scholar Forum and Stop AAPI Hate, have called for Congress to remove the provision from the final version of the appropriations bill.AIP is a non-profit organization that promotes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge in the field of physics and related disciplines. Founded in 1931, it serves as a federation of scientific societies, supporting the physics community through a variety of initiatives, including publications, advocacy, education, and outreach.Read the AIP report: https://bit.ly/47yU0FU . Read the White House statement: https://bit.ly/3XvIXJ1 What is McCarthyism? McCarthyism refers to a period of intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States during the early Cold War, particularly in the late 1940s and 1950s. Named after Senator Joseph McCarthy , it is characterized by widespread accusations of communist infiltration in American institutions, often without substantial evidence. The movement targeted government officials, entertainment industry figures, educators, and union leaders, among others, accusing them of being Soviet sympathizers or communist spies. McCarthyism led to investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and loyalty tests for federal employees. Many individuals lost their jobs, were blacklisted from industries (especially in Hollywood), or faced public shaming. The era also created a climate of fear and repression, where dissenting political views were suppressed.The term "McCarthyism" now broadly refers to the practice of making baseless accusations or using unfair investigative methods to suppress dissent and stoke public fear. The movement began to collapse in 1954 after McCarthy's own credibility was questioned during the televised Army-McCarthy hearings. The famous moment during the hearings came when Joseph Welch , an attorney for the Army, confronted McCarthy with the line, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" This marked a turning point in public opinion against McCarthy, leading to his censure by the U.S. Senate, and the eventual end of the era.McCarthyism left a lasting impact on American politics and culture, often viewed as a cautionary tale about the dangers of political persecution and mass hysteria.Watch the PBS video clip "Have You No Decency?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svUyYzzv6VI (5:46) Book Chapter on New Red Scare The FBI has a long history of surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the United States. McCarthyism, the Economic Espionage Act, and more recently the China Initiative were initiatives adversely impacting Chinese and Chinese Americans living in the U.S. The stereotypes of Asian and Chinese scientists as “disloyal” stem from the perpetual foreigner trope. The key here is that most of them were U.S. citizens. They are as much an American as any other American, yet their “loyalty” is perceived as less trustworthy. This stereotype has harmful, life-altering consequences.Read this and other chapters from the book Communicated Stereotypes at Work by Anastacia Kurylo (Editor, Contributor), Yifeng Hu (Editor, Contributor), Wilfredo Alvarez (Contributor), & 29 more. ASIN:B0CSK2PGY3. Lexington Books (May 15, 2024) Opinion on Don't Bring "China Initiative" Back and More Statements On September 19, 2024, The Hill published an opinion by Mike German, senior fellow in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program and a former FBI special agent. According to the opinion, allies of Donald Trump aim to revive the China Initiative, a failed Trump-era program targeting economic espionage by Chinese agents, which led to racial profiling and harm to U.S. science. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 proposes its return, while Congress recently passed a bill to rebrand it as the "CCP Initiative."Originally launched in 2018, the China Initiative became a tool for targeting Chinese and Asian American researchers, rather than catching spies, leading to a chilling effect on scientific research. Although FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed widespread China-related misconduct, most investigations did not result in espionage convictions, instead focusing on minor administrative offenses.Read The Hill opinion by Mike German: https://bit.ly/47yBPQI Read more statements condemning the revival of the China Initiative:2024/09/20 1990 Institute: The 1990 Institute condemns H.R.1398, legislation that reestablishes the China Initiative 2024/09/18 AAASE: Open Letter to Congress 2024/09/18 OCA: OCA Condemns Measures Fueling Xenophobia and Discrimination 2024/09/09 ACE: Letter to House Leaders AASF Forum with the National Institutes of Health On September 19, the Asian American Scholars Forum (AASF) hosted a public forum with leadership from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The speakers included NIH Director Dr. Monica M. Bertagnolli and NIH Principal Deputy Director Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak . AASF Executive Director Gisela Kusakawa moderated the forum. In her opening remarks, Dr. Bertagnolli acknowledged the valuable contributions of Asian scholars to the U.S. scientific community and reaffirmed NIH's commitment to building relationships with Asian scholars to address the most challenging research challenges in health sciences collaboratively. Dr. Bertagnolli expressed deep concern over the fallout that the U.S. government’s efforts to address troubling actions from China have had on Asian scholars and the difficulties they face. She stated, "We are here to tell you: we hear you, and we see you. We are ready to work together with you as partners in a productive manner."Kusakawa asked about Dr. Bertagnolli’s vision for NIH in the future, and how NIH can create a warm and welcoming environment to protect and empower Asian scholars. Dr. Bertagnolli highlighted that one of NIH’s strengths is its inclusiveness, which brings together the best scientists from diverse backgrounds to address cutting-edge scientific challenges. She noted that ensuring that Asian scholars feel welcome in this environment is crucial. She also noted that rebuilding trust in NIH among Asian scholars, especially those who have lost confidence in the government and NIH, remains an ongoing effort.Dr. Bertagnolli listed a number of steps to make Asian American scholars feel included and welcomed at NIH. She said that today’s forum was aimed at clearing up misunderstandings, and listening to the voices of Asian scholars. She also said NIH will provide more training on research integrity, use new disclosure forms, and explain NIH’s new policy matrix, which further clarifies NIH’s response to foreign adverse influence. She thanked Asian American organizations including AASF for their input in developing these policies. Kusakawa mentioned the recent passage of a bill in the House of Representatives attempting to reinstate the China Initiative and asked how NIH handles political pressure while protecting Asian scholars from excessive scrutiny and maintaining the integrity of NIH research. Dr. Bertagnolli said this was a very important question and emphasized that, regardless of the political climate, NIH remains committed to ensuring the quality and integrity of the research it funds. These policies, on the one hand, are a responsibility to taxpayers and, on the other, help protect researchers from undue foreign influence, which has long been a core principle of NIH policy, well understood by researchers.Dr. Bertagnolli specifically emphasized that, in 2022, NIH began updating its Policies & Procedures for Promoting Scientific Integrity in response to a presidential memorandum. Dr. Bertagnolli reiterated that maintaining research integrity and protecting it from harmful foreign influence has always been NIH’s policy.During the subsequent session, NIH Principal Deputy Director Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak continued to answer questions from AASF. In his responses, Dr. Tabak denied that NIH specifically targeted Chinese researchers based on their ethnicity and stressed that NIH’s investigations targeted certain behaviors that potentially violate the agency’s policy, not focused on individuals. He clarified two additional misunderstandings: first, that NIH is not involved in the now-defunct Department of Justice's China Initiative; and second, that NIH does not have the authority to stop research funding to an institution or university due to the actions of an individual.Dr. Tabak also mentioned that while NIH does not have the power to suggest actions to members of Congress proactively, it always cooperates when lawmakers request technical explanations and support. NIH can use these opportunities to clarify relevant issues to legislators and educate them on specific issues. Kusakawa further raised the issue of how to overcome the underrepresentation of Asian scholars in leadership positions. Dr. Tabak explained that NIH’s previous approach was to train senior researchers with the hope that they would move into leadership roles. Now, however, they have begun training younger researchers hoping to address the problem more effectively.Finally, Dr. Tabak praised the work of organizations like AASF. He stated that NIH looks forward to collaborating with AASF and universities to strengthen connections with Asian scholars. More than 600 people registered for the forum, and over 60 questions were submitted. The record of this event will be available publicly. Juan Zhang , editor at US-China Perception Monitor, contributed this report. Comments and Questions Submitted by APA Justice APA Justice submitted the following comments and questions for the AASF Forum with NIH:"Dr. Bertagnolli’s recent statement was an important first step. The forum is another positive step to repair relationships and rebuild trust."While it is important to turn the page and move forward, it is equally essential to reflect on what went wrong and the lessons learned from all sides over the past six years—particularly with the looming threat of a China Initiative revival."Over the past six years, both intended and unintended consequences have emerged. Hundreds if not thousands of researchers, an overwhelming proportion of them were of Chinese origin, were placed under suspicion, surveilled, investigated, or prosecuted—many of them continue to this day. More than 100 scientists and researchers lost their jobs and had their reputation and finances ruined. At least two prominent Chinese American researchers—one from Northwestern University and another from Arizona State University—died by suicide, reportedly as a result of inquiries or investigations initiated by the NIH."Does the NIH believe all these scientists and researchers were treated fairly and justly? Will the NIH conduct a review of some, if not all, of these cases to assess the fairness of the process and hearing of their appeals? Will the NIH work with institutions, faculty, and the Asian American and scientific communities to establish a consistent due process framework, ensuring that the accused have a fair opportunity to refute charges and defend themselves?" Dr. Zhijian “James” Chen Wins “America’s Nobel” According to Forbes , South China Morning Post , and multiple media on September 19, 2024, Dr. Zhijian “James” Chen 陈志坚 won the 2024 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award, which is also known as "America's Nobel."Dr. Chen is Professor of Molecular Biology and Director of the Center for Inflammation Research at University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center and the George L. MacGregor Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Science. He was recognized for his discovery of the cGAS enzyme that senses pathogens like viruses and bacteria and triggers the body’s immune system. His work provides clues for new treatments of cancer and other diseases.“Dr. Chen’s research has elucidated the process by which our bodies fight off invasive pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, and other microbes, through the detection of wayward intracellular nucleic acids. Insights into this signaling pathway provide a foundation for new approaches to the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases as well as vaccine development,” said Daniel K. Podolsky , M.D., President of UTSW. Shan-Lu Liu , a professor of virology at Ohio State University, also said that Dr. Chen's discovery had "opened new avenues" for understanding autoimmune diseases. "Dr Chen's work not only enhances our understanding of immune mechanisms, but also provides potential strategies for treating diseases linked to immune dysregulation," Dr. Liu said.Dr. Chen is the fourth UTSW faculty member to win a Lasker Award. The previous three winners are all Nobel laureates. The Lasker Awards recognize significant achievements in medicine and biomedical research. Since 1945, the Lasker Foundation has awarded more than 400 prizes to outstandig scientists and clinical researchers. A total of six individuals were recognized this year with awards in three categories — basic research, clinical research, and public service. Each award carries a stipend of $250,000.Dr. Chen is the sixth scientist of Chinese origin to receive a Lasker Award. He is also the second Chinese recipient in the basic research category, more than six decades after biochemist Choh Hao Li , who won in 1962. Dr. Chen, 58, was born in a rural area of China's southeastern Fujian province. After graduating with a bachelor's degree in biology from Fujian Normal University in 1985, he won an overseas scholarship to the State University of New York at Buffalo, where he earned a PhD in biochemistry in 1991. He set up a lab at UTSW in 1997 and was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences in 2014. Read the Forbes report: https://bit.ly/3zDR9yK . Read the South China Morning Post report: https://bit.ly/3Bm3doN News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events:2024/09/25 C100: State of Chinese American Survey 2024 2024/09/25-26 APAICS Technology Summit2024/09/26 White House Initiative AA& NHPI Policy Summit2024/09/27 The War for Chinese Talent in America: The Politics of Technology and Knowledge in Sino-U.S. Relations2024/09/29 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/10/02 C100: Asian American Career Ceiling Initiative2024/10/06 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/10/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/10/08 Media Training for Election Season2024/10/10 China in the Heartland: Building a Balanced Approach2024/10/11 China and the World Forum (Virtual): China-U.S.: Destined for War or Inevitable Peace?The Community Calendar has moved. Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. APA Justice Newsletter Web Page Moving to New Website As part of its continuing migration to a new website under construction, we are moving 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 September 25, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

The abrupt dismissal of visa fraud and other charges against five scientists from China in five separate “China Initiative” cases and the FBI reports from the discovery process exposed the weaknesses of the prosecutions, dissension in the FBI’s own ranks, and exaggerated claims of national security risks by the government. July 22, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Non-Armed Uniformed Services in the US “Startling” Claim by Assistant Attorney General John Demers What the Juan Tang Case Revealed What the Lei Guan Case Revealed Links and References Overview In court filings on July 22 and 23, 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) abruptly moved to drop visa fraud and other charges against five scientists from China in five separate "China Initiative" cases, including four biomedical and cancer researchers in California and a doctoral candidate studying artificial intelligence in Indiana. U.S. District judges have granted dismissal in three of the five cases. The five Chinese nationals are: Lei Guan (关磊), Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛), Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟), Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣), Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯), Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University Prosecutors did not provide explanations in their motions to dismiss. According to multiple media reports, Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” DOJ announced the visa fraud charges against four of the five scientists exactly a year ago on July 23, 2020. Just a day earlier, the U.S. ordered China to close its consulate in Houston, accusing it of being a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. Although the DOJ did not provide an explanation for the dismissals, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post , an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Non-Armed Uniformed Services in the US Some of these five prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. Out of the eight branches of uniformed services of the United States, two are non-armed: The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is the uniformed personnel system of the United States Public Health Service, which is under the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps is a uniformed branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is under the Department of Commerce. “Startling” Claim by Assistant Attorney General John Demers On December 2, 2020, The Washington Post reported that John Demers, Assistant Attorney General John Demers claimed that more than 1,000 researchers who had hidden their affiliation with the Chinese military fled the United States. The exodus came in the wake of the arrests of six Chinese researchers accused of lying on their visa applications about their ties to the People’s Liberation Army. The arrests, coupled with the closure of the Chinese Consulate in Houston, which U.S. officials said served as a command-and-control node to direct spying operations, were intended to send a signal to Beijing. The figure was described as “startling” and has not been supported by any factual evidence. What the Juan Tong Case Revealed On July 19, 2021, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial . It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." Specifically, the highlighted response to the question “Is this obfuscation indicative of nefarious intent?” says: Investigations associated with these individuals as well as PLA experts interviewed in the cases cited above suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one’s military service or affiliation. China’s PLA is not a direct analog to how the US military services are set up, especially regarding the PLA’s Civilian Cadre. CTTAU assesses that while some intentional obfuscation is almost certainly being used by the PLA to gain entry into the US, there are grey areas where it is difficult for the FBI and DOS to determine whether obfuscation is intentional or for nefarious tech transfer purposes. Among the Civilian Cadre are a significant number of doctors and nurses and other professionals that at times are required to wear a military type uniform, but who would not necessarily consider themselves soldiers despite being considered as active duty. There are also contract civilians who work for the PLA, but are not considered active duty military. Within investigations it may also appear as if students and scholars from particular MCF-designated and PLA-affiliated universities and institutions are obfuscating their respective affiliations by not declaring military service despite having academic advisors who are PLA officers, but the FBI has an incomplete understanding of the full nature of this student/scholar to academic advisor relationship. What the Lei Guan Case Revealed A partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan on July 12, 2021. It is titled Fourth Military Medical University Interviews and Arrests Likely Had Minimal Impact in Mitigating Technology Transfer Threats from PRC Students dated March 19, 2021. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests had a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. Jump to: Overview Non-Armed Uniformed Services in the US “Startling” Claim by Assistant Attorney General John Demers What the Juan Tang Case Revealed What the Lei Guan Case Revealed The abrupt dismissal of visa fraud and other charges against five scientists from China in five separate “China Initiative” cases and the FBI reports from the discovery process exposed the weaknesses of the prosecutions, dissension in the FBI’s own ranks, and exaggerated claims of national security risks by the government. Previous Next 8. Five Visa Fraud Cases Dismissed

Newsletter - #11 Amicus Brief Filed; "Red Scare" Series Wins Award; Briefing For Senator Warner #11 Amicus Brief Filed; "Red Scare" Series Wins Award; Briefing For Senator Warner Back View PDF August 21, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #297 12/11 Webinar - Ted Lieu; Gene Wu; Andy Kim; New CAPAC Leadership; AAJC #297 12/11 Webinar - Ted Lieu; Gene Wu; Andy Kim; New CAPAC Leadership; AAJC In This Issue #297 · Ted Lieu to Deliver Remarks at Tomorrow's Land Ownership Webinar · Gene Wu Elected Chair of Texas Democratic Caucus · Andy Kim Sworn in as U.S. Senator for New Jersey · CAPAC Elected New Leadership · AAJC Calls for Sign-on to Open Letter on Select Committee on CCP · News and Activities for the Communities Ted Lieu to Deliver Remarks at Tomorrow's Land Ownership Webinar U.S. Representative Ted W. Lieu 刘云平 will deliver the opening remarks at the webinar co-hosted by the Committee of 100 and APA Justice titled " The Impact of Land Ownership Exclusion Laws on Diverse Communities " on December 11, 2024. On November 19, 2024, Rep. Lieu was reelected as Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest position in House Democratic leadership. Lieu is a U.S. Air Force veteran and retired from the Reserve with the rank of Colonel. As a legislator, Lieu has established himself as a leader on artificial intelligence; the environment; cybersecurity; civil liberties; foreign affairs and veterans. As the highest-ranking Asian American in Congress, Lieu continues to champion policies promoting equity, justice, and inclusion.Register to attend the webinar today: https://bit.ly/3CEWK9p WHAT : From Past Prejudice to Present Policy: The Impact of Land Ownership Exclusion Laws on Diverse Communities WHEN: December 11, 2024, 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm ET WHERE: Webinar WHAT: Historically discriminatory policies are reemerging in state legislatures across the U.S. Originally designed to prevent non-citizens, particularly those from AAPI communities, from owning property, these laws are now being reframed as safeguards to national security. This webinar will discuss whether these laws properly address national security concerns or whether they are merely a pretext that infringes upon civil rights and liberties under the guise of protection. A panel of legal experts and advocates will delve into the history of alien land laws, examine their renewed impact on vulnerable communities and discuss key cases, including a bill recently introduced in Florida. This event is essential for anyone committed to upholding justice and equity in America. To learn more about current land ownership exclusion legislations, visit Committee of 100’s interactive map , which details specific bills, status, and text. Also, visit APA Justice Alien Land Bills webpage for the latest developments on current lawsuits challenging these laws and more. HOSTS: Committee of 100, APA Justice Moderator: Cindy Tsai , Interim President, Committee of 100 Opening Remarks: Ted Lieu, U.S. Representative (CA-36), Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Speakers: · Edgar Chen , Special Policy Advisor, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) · Ashley Gorski , Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) · Gene Wu , Chair of Texas House Democratic Caucus Closing Remarks: Jeremy Wu , Founder and Co-Organizer, APA Justice; Member, Committee of 100 REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3CEWK9p Gene Wu Elected Chair of Texas Democratic Caucus On December 4, 2024, the Texas House Democratic Caucus (HDC) elected Rep. Gene Wu (吴元之) as their new chair. Gene Wu has been representing District 137 in the Texas House of Representatives since 2013. He is known for his support of immigration, family and minority groups including Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, and Hispanics. Rep. Gene Wu was the first legislator who brought the alien land laws to the attention of the public nationwide. He will speak at the webinar on " The impact of Land Ownership Exclusion Laws on Diverse Communities " on December 11, 2024. A dedicated advocate for the Asian Pacific American community in Texas and across the nation, Gene Wu regularly holds town hall meetings and travels nationwide, urging the community to confront the rising threat of anti-Asian legislation at both the state and federal levels. His 26-slide presentation offers a concise overview of the historical anti-Asian issue in the U.S., tracing its roots from the founding of the United States to the "China Week" in the U.S. House of Representatives in September 2024. He also presented this issue during his town hall meeting on September 29, 2024: https://bit.ly/3XN7Ujm (49:37). · Texas Tribune: Houston Rep. Gene Wu to lead Texas House Democrats through GOP-dominated legislative session · Houston Chronicle: Houston Rep. Gene Wu chosen as next Democratic leader in Texas House · Houston Public Media: Houston Rep. Gene Wu elected Chair of Texas House Democratic Caucus · Chron: Houston’s Gene Wu elected Texas House Democratic leader in surprise move Andy Kim Sworn in as U.S. Senator for New Jersey On December 8, 2024, Senator-elect Andy Kim was appointed to the United States Senate by Governor Phil Murphy , allowing him to assume office ahead of his elected term beginning on January 3, 2025. The appointment followed Kim’s certification by the Board of State Canvassers as the winner of the Senate race to succeed Bob Menendez . Kim was sworn in on Monday, December 9, 2024, becoming New Jersey’s newest senator.In a brief speech on the Senate floor, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) welcomed Kim, who he called “one of the most respected and admired members of the House Democratic caucus, where his talent was only matched by his decency.” “Today, I am appointing Senator-elect Andy Kim to the United States Senate so he can begin his term in office before the new year begins,” Murphy said in an official statement. “Taking this step will allow Senator Kim to embark on the smoothest possible transition into his new role so he can hit the ground running serving the people of New Jersey,” Murphy said. Senator Kim expressed gratitude for the opportunity: “It’s an honor to get to represent the state that gave my family a chance at the American Dream in the U.S. Senate. It’s a dream that remains out of reach for too many of our neighbors, and one that I’m ready on day one to fight for. I want to thank Governor Murphy and Senator [George] Helmy for ensuring that New Jersey was well represented during this transition, and look forward to getting to work for the people.” On November 18, 2024, Senator-elect Kim addressed the APA Justice monthly meeting. He expressed gratitude to APA Justice for its efforts in addressing anti-Asian hate and discrimination and highlighted the challenges of creating a secure and inclusive environment for all, referencing his personal concerns for his children and elderly parents. Kim emphasized the importance of building coalitions to combat hate and discrimination in all forms, including policies like the China Initiative, which he described as fear-mongering. He pledged to continue fighting these issues in his role as a U.S. Senator and called on others to join him in these efforts. A summary of the November 18 APA Justice monthly meeting is being prepared at this time. Read the New Jersey Monitor report : https://bit.ly/3ZJDxfD and Governor Murphy's statement: https://bit.ly/4g6niz0 . CAPAC Elected New Leadership On December 4, 2024, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) announced its leadership for the 119th Congress. Rep. Judy Chu ( 赵美心 , CA-28) transitions to Chair Emeritus. The newly elected leadership includes · Rep. Grace Meng ( 孟昭文 , NY-06), Chair · Rep. Mark Takano ( 高野马克 , CA-39), First Vice-Chair · Rep. Jill Tokuda ( 德田吉尔 , HI-02), Second Vice-Chair · Rep. Ami Bera , M.D. (CA-06), Whip · Rep.-elect Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10), Freshman Representative APA Justice and other organizations issued statements reacting positively about the new leadership. · CAPAC Announces Newly Elected Leadership for the 119th Congress · APA Justice Applauds New CAPAC Leadership · APAICS Applauds Congresswoman Grace Meng’s Election as CAPAC Chair · NBC News: Rep. Grace Meng to lead congressional Asian caucus, replacing longtime chair Judy Chu · AsAm News: Grace Meng will lead congressional Asian caucus AAJC Calls for Sign-on to Open Letter on Select Committee on CCP Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC is preparing to send an open letter to House leadership, opposing the reauthorization of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (Select Committee). This letter is born out of concern that the harmful and targeted policies supported by the Select Committee—including the revival of the DOJ’s China Initiative as well as various iterations of land laws— will only continue to ratchet up anti-Asian sentiment in the 119th Congress.To read the open letter and sign on, interested organizations are asked to complete this form: https://bit.ly/4950dKv News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/12/10 National Immigration Inclusion Conference 2024/12/11 Webinar on Alien Land Laws2024/12/22 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/01/05 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/01/06 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/01/19 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/02/02 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/02/13-15 2025 AAAS Annual Meeting2025/02/16 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the APA Justice website at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . As part of its continuing migration to a new website under construction, we have moved the Newsletter webpage to www.apajusticetaskforce.org/newsletters . We value your feedback about the new web page. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF December 10, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Alien Land Bills WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME Prev Next Overview Alien land laws were a series of laws enacted in the United States, primarily in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the intent of restricting land ownership and leasing rights for non-citizens, particularly targeting Asian immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship, such as Chinese immigrants due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Alien Land Laws varied from state to state but generally prohibited non-citizens, or aliens, from owning or leasing land directly in their own names. In some cases, they also restricted the ability of non-citizen corporations in which aliens were major shareholders from owning land. These laws were often discriminatory and aimed to discourage Asian immigrants from establishing permanent roots and economic stability in the United States. The Alien Land Laws were part of a broader context of anti-immigrant sentiment and racism prevalent during that time period. They contributed to the marginalization and economic disadvantage faced by Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino descent, who were significant contributors to the agricultural industry in states like California and Hawaii. Alien land laws were justified by politicians of the time as "national security" measures, yet they fueled economic hardship, violence, and discrimination against Asian immigrants. Over the decades, courts struck down or repealed most of these laws as unconstitutional, recognizing the equal protection rights of immigrant communities. However, similar patterns and justifications re-emerged with recent legislation, like Florida’s state law known as SB 264, echoing these historical discriminatory practices under new pretexts. References and Links Equal Justice Initiative: California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land Immigration History: Alien Land Laws in California (1913 & 1920) Smithsonian Institution: A More Perfect Union - Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution Wikipedia: Alien Land Laws 2023/02/18 Racism.org: The End of California's Anti-Asian Alien Land Law: A Case Study in Reparations and Transitional Justice History of Alien Land Laws Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to customize this theme across your site. You can update and reuse text themes. Timeline Contents Go Go Select Title

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

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

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

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

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