Song Guo Zheng Previous Item Next Item

Anming Hu 胡安明 Docket ID: 3:20-cr-00021 District Court, E.D. Tennessee Date filed: Feb 25, 2020 Date ended: September 9, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations 2021/07/30 Outage at DOJ Motion for Retrial 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out The Role of UTK Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated Photo Album & Links and References Overview On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). Professor Hu was the second China Initiative case involving a U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry. He was charged with three counts each of wire fraud and making false statements, but not espionage. The charges stemmed from his purported failure to disclose affiliations with a Chinese university while receiving funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Professor Hu was the first to go to trial. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. The jury includes 4 women and 8 men - all white. This was an embarrassing outcome for DOJ to fail on the very first trial under the China Initiative. What was even more embarrassing was the overzealous tactics and misconduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) revealed during the trial. On the part of UTK administrators, they concealed the federal investigation from Professor Hu, provided his records to the authorities without a warrant or informing him, suspended him without pay, and fired him shortly after. Without any attempt to protect its faculty, UTK was broadly criticized for throwing Professor Hu “under the bus.” Despite the absence of evidence and misconduct, DOJ opted to pursue a retrial on July 30, 2021, prompting outrage by members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. “The government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK," he wrote. Professor Hu was born in China and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. He joined the UTK faculty in 2013. At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay. His son had to withdraw from UTK due to financial difficulties. UTK terminated Professor Hu’s employment on October 8, 2020, citing the termination was not for cause but for “not eligible to work due to policy or regulations.” On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. After a long delay, Professor Hu’s application for U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024. Back to Table of Contents 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations The jury trial of Professor Hu started on June 7, 2021. On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked. Knox News reporter Jamie Satterfield provided end-to-end coverage of the trial. Although it was not her original assignment, Satterfield was on site to observe witness testimony, read records related to the case, and conducted a thorough, independent investigation. According to the Knox News reports, FBI agent Kujtim Sadiku admitted in court testimonies that federal agents: Falsely accused Professor Hu of being a spy for China, Falsely implicated him as an operative for the Chinese military in meetings with Professor Hu’s superiors, Used false information to put Professor Hu on the federal no-fly list, Spurred U.S. customs agents to seize Professor Hu’s computer and phone and spread word throughout the international research community that Professor Hu was poison, Used false information to justify putting a team of agents to spy on Professor Hu and his son, a freshman at UTK, for nearly two years, Used false information to press Professor Hu to become a spy for the U.S. government. During cross-examination, defense attorney Phil Lomonaco said to Sadiku, “You wanted to find a Chinese spy in Knoxville,” making note of the tactics he used to secure a fraud indictment against Professor Hu. “My job is to find spies, yes,” the FBI agent responded. During the trial, Sadiku admitted to not knowing the last time Professor Hu was in China. “You’ve been carrying around his passport … haven’t you?” Lomonaco asked Sadiku. “You know you’re under oath, right?” “I don’t remember the dates on it. … I wouldn’t rely on that document,” Sadiku responded. Lomonaco asked if Sadiku could return Professor Hu’s passport. During the trial, Sadiku was unable to recall who tipped him off that Professor Hu might be a spy. Sadiku claimed that his investigation had nothing to do with the China Initiative when the Trump administration was pushing federal prosecutors to round up Chinese spies under the China Initiative. He also claimed that his investigation began with an “open source” search for information on Professor Hu, which turned out to be a Google search on the professor. “If you can find it by Google search, how can it be that Professor Hu was hiding it as a secret,” Satterfield raised the rhetorical question after the mistrial. Sadiku admitted to telling university officials that Professor Hu was a Chinese military operative, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. He never followed up with the officials to clarify that his statements were false. Federal prosecutors then shifted their focus away from unsupported spy allegations. Instead, they pursued a case of fraud, citing a law known as the NASA restriction. This law prohibits NASA from funding research involving collaboration with China or Chinese-owned companies. Professor Hu was accused of intentionally omitting his part-time teaching job at the Beijing University of Technology (BJUT) from disclosure forms, allegedly violating the NASA restriction. However, the law does not bar NASA from funding research that involves collaboration with Chinese universities. NASA itself added Chinese universities to its restrictions list and the DOJ under the Trump administration used it as an excuse in 2018 to search American universities for China-born researchers as potential spies. Professor Hu was not the only professor born in China targeted as part of the China Initiative, but his trial is the first legal test of that NASA policy. Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Arrowood argued that Professor Hu began plotting to violate the NASA restriction in 2013 — two years after it was enacted — by leaving his part-time teaching job at BJUT off his UTK “outside interests” form. However, testimony showed that UTK officials told Professor Hu and all its research personnel the NASA restriction did not apply to its “faculty, staff and students” because they are not “entities of China.” A letter, dubbed the China Assurance and sent to NASA with each UTK grant proposal, repeated the same language. Professor Hu’s affiliation with BJUT was clearly listed in other UTK documents and in dozens of research papers posted on the Internet. Lomonaco also noted it was not Professor Hu who sought a NASA grant. It was NASA who sought Professor Hu’s technology. “They wanted him to work on this project,” Lomonaco said. “(A NASA contractor) sought him out because he was so qualified. (Hu) wasn’t trying to trick NASA.” 2021/07/30 Outrage at DOJ Motion for Retrial On July 30, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it intends to retry the case against Professor Anming Hu after FBI agents admitted under oath to knowingly building a case on falsified evidence to find a non-existent spy, resulting in a mistrial. In statement issued by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, she said, “Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime. Many of the FBI’s cases have been flawed from the start, evident in the number of cases that have been dropped without any explanation, and despite the incredible harm done to those whose lives have been turned upside down by these investigations. The case of Dr. Anming Hu is the most glaring example of how investigations rooted in racial profiling lead to flimsy cases that cannot stand up in court. Worse, in order to justify this investigation, we know that FBI agents have falsified evidence. Yet instead of accepting that Dr. Hu does not in any way present a threat to our national security, the DOJ is disappointingly doubling down, pressing for a retrial to justify their fruitless investigation. We must take national security threats seriously, but the China Initiative does not work, and has threatened a return to prejudice as a cornerstone of policy. Unless the DOJ has new evidence against Dr. Hu, this case must be dropped and the China Initiative halted.” After the government made its announcement, defense attorney Philip Lomonaco filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal , which was originally filed on June 11, 2021 . The motion for acquittal was made because "the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is no evidence that Professor Hu willfully intended to deceive NASA... Without the intent to deceive there can be no wire fraud conviction. Without the convictions for wire fraud, the remaining counts would fail as well... In the alternative, Defendant would rely on previous briefings to the Court regarding the lack of intent to harm NASA as being a defense to wire fraud as well." On August 20, 2021, APA Justice and a coalition of nine national and local organizations sent a letter to Judge Thomas A. Varlan urging him to dismiss the case and acquit Professor Hu in the best interest of justice and fairness. The letter provides the Asian American historical perspective on racial profiling, including the government's continuing use of xenophobic labels on Asian Americans such as "Non-traditional Collectors" and "Thousand Grains of Sand," as well as a continuing pattern with the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Professor Xiaoxing Xi, and Ms. Sherry Chen prior to the China Initiative. The first trial shows that Professor Hu’s case has nothing to do with theft of American trade secrets. It started as an economic espionage investigation based on a false premise and failed with misinformation to implicate Professor Hu as a spy for China and attempt to press him to spy for the U.S. government. Congress made inquiries into the alleged FBI misconduct. It is with this historical perspective and the prevailing facts in his case that we find the intent by the DOJ to retry Professor Hu to be deeply concerning and invidious. Massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars and federal resources have already been spent without accountability to inflict enormous harm to Professor Hu and his family in the government’s zeal to hunt for a non-existent spy. Overzealous investigations such as Professor Hu’s undermines the U.S. Constitution as the government should have at least a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before launching an investigation, and race, ethnicity or national origin should not be used to profile people. The co-signers of the letter were: Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Asian-American Community Service Council Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) Defending Rights & Dissent Greater Nashville Chinese Association (GNCA) New England Chinese American Coalition (NECAC) Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA) San Francisco Community Alliance for Unity, Safety & Education (SFCause) University of Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of University Professors The following organizations co-signed the letter at a later date: Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC) Calvin J Li Memorial Foundation Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates Carl Patton, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University, and The Committee of Concerned Scientists also sent their letters to Judge Varlan urging the dismissal of Professor Hu's case on August 2 and 4, 2021 respectively. 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges The first trial of Professor Hu revealed the zeal of the misguided China Initiative to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial. A former juror said after the first trial, “It was the most ridiculous case.” About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” Despite the egregious abuses of authority and lack of evidence, DOJ motioned for a retrial of Professor Hu on July 30, 2021. The blatant disregard of fairness and justice outraged members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. Judge Varlan wrote on page 42 of the 52-page ruling acquitting Hu that " the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK. " According to two legal experts, the judge's ruling has particular significance and relevance in similar cases against an academic under the China Initiative. On page 38 of the ruling, the judge wrote: The Sixth Circuit’s Frost decision is squarely aligned with Takhalov’s conclusion that the federal wire fraud statute requires the intent to cause a tangible harm to the victim regarding the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Frost’s ultimate conclusion that the lack of tangible harm meant there was insufficient evidence on the element of intent to Case 3:20-cr-00021-TAV-DCP Document 141 Filed 09/09/21 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 2333 39 defraud, 125 F.3d at 361–62, further confirms that Takhalov’s definition of the term “defraud” in the federal wire fraud statute is correct and applies equally in this Circuit. The two legal experts opined that the judge required a high standard of “a specific intent to defraud” so as to receive some financial benefits. Professor Hu’s alleged hiding of his relationship with BJUT was not to defraud NASA for money. Accordingly, the wire fraud charges should be dropped. This means that this will make DOJ's wire fraud charge against other professors considerably harder. In addition, the judge carefully described how UTK failed to provide clear guidance and training to the professors on the restrictions of the collaboration with Chinese institutions, which explains why Professor Hu did not fully disclose his affiliation with the Chinese university. This problem is common in nearly all universities in the U.S. and can be used as a reason to fight the charges against other professors. 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Professor Anming Hu, his wife Ivy Yang, and defense attorney Phil Lomonaco spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021, only days after Professor Hu’s acquittal. Phil led off the meeting with the good news about the acquittal of Professor Hu on September 9, 2021. He expressed appreciation for the interest, support, and help from many to Professor Hu and his family through the trying times. There were many twists and turns in the case. As the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative, it was very important to have a good outcome for Professor Hu’s case, and Phill could not ask for anything better. Judge Thomas Varlan right from the beginning was open. He looked at the pre-trial motions where Phil set off the facts and arguments. The judge was open to waiting to see the evidence at trial - whether what Phil said in his papers really came true through the witnesses’ testimonies. The judge paid attention and was very much on point with everything in his memorandum opinion, granting the rule 29 motion by tracking the trial. Basically, Judge Varlan found there was no preponderance of the evidence to convince a jury that Professor Hu was guilty even given in a light most favorable to the government. The government did not provide sufficient evidence of guilt. The judge found two reasons why Professor Hu was innocent of wire fraud. The first being that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to deceive NASA, or fraudulently represent a material fact to NASA, that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that. The second theory Phil had propounded was that there was no damage or Professor Hu did not intend to injure NASA. Phil found a case law supporting the theory that if NASA is not damaged, or if Professor Hu was not taking property or money from NASA, or intended to take property and money from NASA, he could not be convicted of wire fraud. Phil cited a case out of the 11-th Circuit that held if there is no harm there is no foul, so to speak. It was a district court judge who is sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it would have been Judge Varlan’s boss if he disagreed with that theory. That was another blessing that God provided, Phil said. Without the proof that Professor Hu knowingly and intentionally tried to deceive NASA, the last three counts of false statements were also not supported by evidence. If he did not intend to deceive NASA, then he did not intend to make false statements. Under Rule 29, the judge granted an acquittal on all six counts of the indictment. The last email Phil received from the government said that they were still trying to figure out their appeal options, which Phil did not think they had any, but he would see what they would say. They had a few days to absorb what had happened to make a statement officially in court if they were going to. Phil was very happy with Professor Hu for being a trooper all the way through this process. Professor Hu did not waver to prove his innocence. And that is the kind of client Phil likes – those who are innocent although it is the most stressful type of representation. Phil wishes all his clients had two PhDs, which would be a lot more helpful. Ivy Yang, wife of Professor Hu, followed Phil and expressed gratitude on behalf of their family including three children. The broad support they have received gave them comfort and inspiration to fight against injustice with determination and faith. History is made by people who are the true patriots of this country. Ivy thanked Phil as their beloved attorney and a wise and humble man. History was made by Phil, the jury, Jamie Satterfield, Judge Varlan, CAPAC, APA Justice, AAJC, United Chinese Americans, Asian American Scholar Forum, Committee of Concerned Scientists, American Association of University Professors, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and many, many more persons and organizations. For everyone who made donations, provided encouragement, and watched the case closely, Ivy thanked them for providing the strength for her family to continue the fight. She said Anming is an ordinary passionate scientist who only wanted to perform his research and to contribute his talents to the academic world. What has happened in the past years has damaged his career and reputation that was built over many years of tremendous unbelievable hard work. Although their lives have been forever changed and they are not sure of what the future holds, they will be forever thankful for the selfless actions of individuals who believed and supported them throughout the entire journey despite the backlash, oppression, and fear of injustice. Professor Hu concluded with his brief comments. It was still too challenging for him to find the proper words and no words would be adequate to express his deep appreciation for what so many have done for him. The scars and the painful memories are still there in his heart. For now, he preferred to remain silent and let Phil speak on the case and Ivy to speak for the family. Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University (AAUP), also spoke at the meeting. 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar On December 18, 2021, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a webinar titled “The China Initiative and Professor Anming Hu’s Case.” Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, served as moderator. Featured speakers were: Dr. Anming Hu, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Mara Hvistendahl, Investigative reporter with The Intercept and the author of the book The Scientist and the Spy: A True Story of China, the FBI, and Industrial Espionage, on a case that foreshadowed the China Initiative Jamie Satterfield, Investigative journalist with more than 33 years of experience, specializing in legal affairs, policing, public corruption, environmental crime and civil rights violations Additional speakers included: Steven Pei, Asian American Scholar Forum Phil Lomonaco, defense attorney Wendy Chandler, former juror of the first trial Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors Mara Hvistendahl led off with historical context of targeting Chinese Americans dating back to the Second Red Scare and Dr. Qian Xuesen to the recent cases of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi prior to the launch of the China Initiative. For the first time since his acquittal, Professor Hu talked in detail about his experience and thoughts of his ordeal. Jamie Satterfield, despite not being originally assigned to the case, described her investigative reporting. Her invaluable reports significantly impacted public understanding and perception of Professor Hu’s case in Tennessee and nationwide. Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” A week after the first trial was declared to be a mistrial, on June 23, 2021, the Intercept published an interview with Wendy Chandler, a juror who served on the hung jury. When Chandler was called to serve on a federal jury in Tennessee, she trusted the prosecutors and the FBI. She was known only as Juror 44 in the case. She knew she had to keep an open mind. But surely there would be some merit to what the FBI had found, she thought. The government wouldn’t waste everyone’s time. “I walked in assuming the government had some reason to be there, assuming that they were coming at it with honesty and integrity,” she told Mara Hvistendahl in the first interview given by a juror in the case. “I assumed the best for them.” Chandler understood the complexity and importance of the case and committed to paying close attention, even adjusting her sleep schedule. But as the trial progressed, she grew increasingly skeptical. After six days of hearing witnesses and arguments, she came to a conclusion. “It was the most ridiculous case,” she said. About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” The trial ended in a hung jury. Chandler, one of four women on the all-white jury, was one of the holdouts. She came away believing that the lead FBI agent in the case had pursued the investigation out of ambition rather than an interest in justice. She also believed that when faced with questions from federal agents, the administrators who had advised Hu on his grant applications caved and hastily sacrificed their faculty. “This poor man just got sold down the river by his university and everyone else,” Chandler said. Professor Hu’s case follows a long history of FBI surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S., some of it with disastrous results. In the 1960s, the bureau compiled lists of researchers with ties to China. In the 1980s, agents tailed renowned physicist Chang-Lin Tien, who later became the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, an FBI and Department of Energy investigation into Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee imploded in a series of missteps. “There has been very clear messaging from the Justice Department to the field offices that this is a massive priority and they should take it very seriously,” said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall University. “You combine that with calling it the China Initiative and issues with implicit bias, and you’re creating a recipe for unconscious decision-making to occur in a way that can pull you towards certain people as potential suspects.” In February, civil rights groups, researchers, and others jointly wrote House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Jamie Raskin to request a hearing on investigations of ethnic Asian scientists. Maryland state Sen. Susan C. Lee, who signed the letter, told The Intercept, “We just want some accountability, because you’re talking about people’s lives.” Prosecutors tried to paint Professor Hu as duplicitous. In closing arguments, assistant U.S. attorney Casey Arrowood asserted, “He intentionally hid his ties to China to further his career. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is just that simple.” Professor Hu’s attorney had a different view. “This case is really embarrassing,” Lomonaco countered. “It makes me want to vomit.” The jury began deliberating that afternoon, June 14. It was clear to Chandler from the outset that the jurors didn’t agree. By the end of the day, after three hours of deliberations, they had not reached a verdict. Driving home that night, she burst into tears. “I was so scared for this man,” she recalled. The trial had left her with the feeling that the government was charging Professor Hu to justify its lengthy investigation. “They spent all this time and money on this big giant nothing burger, and they were not going to leave without a pound of flesh.” The jury resumed deliberations on June 16 and discussed the case for the entire day. At 4:45 p.m., the foreperson reported to the court that they were deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. After she was dismissed from jury duty, Chandler found Professor Hu’s GoFundMe page, which his wife started to cover his legal fees, and donated $20. She believes the government now owes Professor Hu an apology and that the University of Tennessee should offer him his job back. As Chandler put it, “He deserves so much, this man, with what was done to him.” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out Soon after the acquittal of Professor Hu, Professor Mary McAlpin, President of the UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and Professor of French at UTK, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021. AAUP is a nonprofit membership association of faculty and other academic professionals. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AAUP members and chapters based at colleges and universities across the country. Founded in 1915, AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities. AAUP defines fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, advance the rights of academics, particularly as those rights pertain to academic freedom and shared governance, and promote the interests of higher education teaching and research. AAUP looks into not only questions of tenured professors but also the protection of non-tenure track faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Mary first heard of Professor Hu’s case from Jamie Satterfield’s report in the local newspaper, Knox News. People started posting many messages and questions in the AAUP listserv – What is going on? What happened? Is AAUP looking into this? What is the administration doing? People were upset and confused. Although the case comes down to simple injustice, trying to figure out what happened through reading was a challenge. Professor McAlpin provided a summary of three primary concerns. First was the FBI investigation and how it seemed to be a travesty of justice, which was also what the judge concluded. Second was UTK’s role in this investigation, which was also covered by Jamie Satterfield. One of her articles went into details about how the UTK administration responded to this case. The university is a giant bureaucratic entity, and it protects itself. When an FBI agent comes calling, the university is not there to help or protect the employee. This has happened several times over the course of Professor McAlpin’s career, but it was never in such an egregious and shocking fashion as in Professor Hu’s case. Third was the government's targeting of international faculty. They are particularly vulnerable to losing their employment at UTK which was what happened with Professor Hu. There are many international faculty members working at UTK. Many of Professor McAlpin’s colleagues in the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures at UTK are on green cards or H1 visas. The international faculty members were probably following this situation very closely, but not speaking out the way that Mary believed she could as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. and possessing tenure. Mary also said that she was closer to the end than the beginning of her career. As President of AAUP/UTK, she was also speaking for those who might be afraid to speak up, particularly employees who were not citizens at UTK. When the acquittal of Professor Hu came through, Mary and her colleagues were thrilled to hear the news. AAUP/UTK sent an email to UTK Provost John Zomchick, hoping that Professor Hu would be reinstated with back pay and perhaps for emotional and other damages. That was not what happened. Apparently, the university is expecting Professor Hu to demonstrate proof that he was able to work in the U.S. before they would rehire him. The UTK Faculty Senate was leading on this case and trying to figure out what exactly was going on with the reinstatement and the legal issues involved. While Professor McAlpin could not speak to the legality of what happened, the Provost has said that in every case and every situation surrounding this case, the UTK administration followed both the letter and the spirit of the faculty handbook. Even if the letter was followed, Professor McAlpin was not sure the spirit of the faculty handbook was followed in this case. From what Professor McAlpin could piece together, Professor Hu was indicted by the federal government. At that point the UTK administration put Professor Hu first on paid and then on unpaid suspension. According to the faculty handbook, the UT administration did not have to put Profdssor. Hu on unpaid suspension. For example, he could have been reassigned to another job unrelated to the indictment that was in play. It was a choice made to put Professor Hu on unpaid leave. Then, because Professor Hu was on unpaid leave, he no longer qualified for the H1B visa, with which he was working and at which point they fired Professor Hu not for cause, but because he did not have an H1B visa, which he did not have because they suspended him without pay, which they did not have to do. Mary observed that UTK basically triggered their own ability to fire Professor Hu because they probably did not want to deal with the legal fallout of the indictment. From what Mary understood at that time, Provost Zomchick was saying that UTK would rehire Professor Hu but he had to prove that he was eligible to work in the U.S., which would mean having a visa, which was lost precisely because the UTK administration suspended him. This is a catch-22 Kafka situation. The faculty members at UTK and perhaps the Faculty Senate were not going to stop pushing on this issue. This is a clear travesty of justice, and it had been continued unfortunately at the level of the university even after the acquittal of Professor Hu. The Role of UTK APA Justice constructed a timeline on the chronological events at UTK. [subject to review and confirmation by Professor Hu.] In March 2018, about nine months before the launch of the China Initiative, the FBI opened an economic espionage investigation on Professor Hu. FBI and Department of Energy (DOE) made at least four presentations to UTK officials prior to the indictment of Professor Hu. After a mistrial was declared, Knox News published How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist on July 29, 2021, raising a detailed list of questions about the university’s treatment of Professor Hu. "The trial also revealed that UT administrators handed over documents from Hu’s university files without a warrant, concealed the federal investigation from him, misled NASA at the behest of a federal agent, set Hu up for his eventual arrest and fired him as soon as he was in handcuffs... It’s still not clear who at UT authorized meetings in 2018 between Hu’s bosses and federal agents or why. Chancellor Beverly Davenport was fired in July 2018 after a tumultuous tenure of less than 19 months, and System President Joe DiPietro announced his resignation two months later... The agents, testimony has revealed, didn’t have any proof of wrongdoing by Hu when they first walked onto UT’s campus and, therefore, no legal authority to take records from his personnel files," Knox News reported. On August 4, 2021, UTK Provost John Zomchick issued a message to the UTK faculty, responding to UTK Faculty Senate President Lou Gross' questions regarding the faculty rights of Professor Hu. President Gross posted his questions and notes under "Faculty Member Suspension Issue" on his web page at https://bit.ly/3Cr67F1 . Citing that the university administration followed the letter and spirit of the Faculty Handbook at every stage, Provost Zomchick provided a timeline of administrative actions taken regarding Professor Hu’s tenured faculty appointment from suspension on February 25, 2020, to termination on October 8, 2020. There were three versions of the Faculty Handbook online: 2016, 2019, and 2021. The handbook says the Faculty Senate President should be consulted when the administration is considering suspending a tenured faculty member. "That did not really happen," said Dr. Gross. "The then-faculty senate president was simply informed." "I have made it clear, and our current provost has agreed, what consultation means," Dr. Gross told Knox News. "Consultation means that there will be time to actually look at the details of a particular situation and provide meaningful input from the faculty senate president." One day after Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges, on September 10, 2021, UTK Chancellor Dr. Donde Plowman informed Dr. Gross and Dr. Beauvais Lyons, Faculty Representative on the UTK Advisory Board, that if Professor Hu "is able to verify authorization to work in the United States in the next year, the administrative termination will be reversed, and his faculty appointment will be reinstated with expectations in place around disclosures and outside interests." In response , Dr. Gross expressed concern that Dr. Plowman's letter was inconsistent with the UTK Faculty Handbook, which states that "full restitution of salary, academic position and tenure lost during the suspension without pay will be made." Dr. Gross also described an apparent catch-22 situation "because Professor Hu lost his work authorization due to UTK action so it is not clear that he can possibly re-attain work authorization without first having his position and employment here restored." In his separate response, Dr. Lyons urged UTK to take steps to reinstate Professor Hu to his faculty position. "This is not only about doing what is right, but damage control for our institutional reputation," he wrote. On September 13, 2021, Dr. Lyons and the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee which he chaired sent a memorandum including a set of 10 questions for UTK Provost Dr. John Zomchick to address at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting. The UTK Senate Faculty held a public meeting on September 20, 2021. UTK faculty were also concerned with the lack of notice that Professor Hu received about the investigation. UTK administrators gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office documents from Professor Hu’s university files without a warrant, and they were not obligated to notify Hu. “In a world of data privacy, this is a great concern to everyone," Dr. Gross said. UTK faculty members were also upset with the lack of public support the university showed Professor Hu. According to the memo from the faculty affairs committee to the provost, the university did not make a statement specifically in support of Chinese and Chinese American communities. On October 14, 2021, Dr. Zomchick offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated On July 29, 2022, the White House announced the nomination of Casey T. Arrowood to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Arrowood led the prosecution of Professor Hu. “This is ridiculous,” Professor Hu said of the Arrowood nomination In an interview in August 2022. “This is the worst presidential nomination ever. I am shocked at this news.” Professor Hu said President Joe Biden should rescind the nomination and, if not, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary should reject Arrowood as a candidate for the post. “My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.” After the story was published, a slew of advocacy groups, including APA Justice, Asian American Scholar Forum, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and United Chinese Americans, teamed up with Professor Hu to defeat Arrowood’s nomination. “The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant and scientific communities,” the groups stated in a letter-writing campaign notice . “It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from the targeting and fallout before and during the ‘China Initiative.’” “Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system,” the letter stated. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust. “His unjust prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation,” the letter continued. “In summary, Mr. Arrowood’s track record does not meet the high requirements and expectations for a U.S. Attorney. We strongly support Professor Hu’s request for the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be the next U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.” The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the Arrowood nomination when the Senate session ended in January 2023. The White House did not renominate Arrowood. Continuing Education and Advocacy Previous Item Next Item

Learn More Contact Us Government Add a 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 .

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

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

Newsletter - #29 12/2 Webinar; "China Initiative" Reports And Statistics; 2020 Census #29 12/2 Webinar; "China Initiative" Reports And Statistics; 2020 Census Back View PDF November 19, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

August 26, 2018 On August 26, 2018, CBS 60 Minutes rebroadcast " Collateral Damage " nationwide with updates on the stories of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi. Bill Whitaker reported on these and other innocent Chinese Americans wrongly accused of espionage-related crimes as the U.S. steps up the fight against Chinese theft of U.S. trade secrets and intellectual property. 60 Minutes Overtime, titled " The Spy Who Wasn't, " further describes that "[a]s innocent Chinese Americans are being accused as spies, the impact on them and their families lasts far beyond the legal fees and dropped charges." Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi are not the only Asian American victims of racial discrimination in U.S. history . Collateral damage for Chinese American scientists is also not a recent occurrence by chance. The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers beginning in 1882. Subsequent amendments expanded the exclusion to all Asians. It was one of the most explicitly discriminatory laws based on race and national origin in U.S. history. The Chinese Exclusion Act and its amendments were not repealed until 1943. More on the Chinese Exclusion Act is available here . During the Second World War, about 120,000 Japanese were interned under Executive Order 9066, about two thirds of them were native-born American citizens. Most of them were uprooted from their homes in the West Coast and sent to relocation centers for suspicion of disloyalty to the United States. Previous Next The Profiling of Asian Americans

Newsletter - #268 Franklin Tao Speaks; Brain Drain; Research Collaboration Decline; Sheila Jackson Lee + #268 Franklin Tao Speaks; Brain Drain; Research Collaboration Decline; Sheila Jackson Lee + In This Issue #268 · The Injustice and Ordeal of Professor Feng "Franklin" Tao · Reverse Brain Drain? Exploring Trends among Chinese Scientists in the U.S. · Nature : China–US research collaborations are in decline · Remembering Sheila Jackson Lee · News and Activities for the Communities The Injustice and Ordeal of Professor Feng "Franklin" Tao On July 11, 2024, Professor Feng "Franklin" Tao was cleared of the final charge against him under the now-defunct China Initiative. He and his wife have accepted an invitation to speak at the next APA Justice monthly meeting on August 5, 2024.Professor Tao was the first academic scientist indicted under the China Initiative on August 21, 2019. As a tenured associate professor at the Kansas University (KU), he conducted research on fundamental studies of catalysis for chemical transformation, promotion of energy efficiency, and environmental sustainability. On June 24, 2020, the government charged him with a second superseding indictment, bringing the total to ten counts including wire fraud and false statements against Professor Tao. These charges were unrelated to espionage or the transfer of sensitive information to China.The case against Professor Tao started from fabricated allegations by a disgruntled visiting scholar. After failing to extort Professor Tao for $300,000, she later admitted to the FBI that she had hacked into his email account to fish for "evidence" and then used phony aliases to submit fabricated complaints to both KU and the FBI.Before the jury trial, the government voluntarily dropped two charges. The trial on the remaining eight counts began on March 21, 2022. The jury acquitted four counts and convicted him on the other four counts. On September 20, 2022, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Julie Robinson acquitted the three wire-fraud counts. Only a false statement count was left. On January 18, 2023, Judge Robinson sentenced Professor Tao to no jail time, no fine, and two years of probation for the remaining false statement conviction. The district court terminated the probation early in February 2024.Professor Tao appealed the conviction of the last count in February 2023. On July 11, 2024, the 10th Circuit Appeals Court ruled in a 2-1 vote that reversed the conviction of making a false statement, clearing all charges imposed on Professor Tao.The acquittal of the last of the 10 original charges marked the end of Professor Tao's five-year ordeal of criminal persecution, initiated by racial profiling under the China Initiative. Despite not being tried for espionage or the transfer of sensitive information to China, his faculty position was terminated in January 2023. He expects KU should reinstate him.While Professor Tao's innocence has now been confirmed, the process has had a tremendous impact on his finances, career, reputation, and family.APA Justice has closely tracked Professor Tao's case from the beginning. The Asian American communities were mobilized to fully support Professor Tao.The media was engaged. Amicus brief was submitted. Funds were raised for his legal defense. Turnout rallies were organized.APA Justice has compiled the details of Professor Tao's ordeal into a web page. It is still a work in progress, but it is available for public review here: https://bit.ly/3y8SBsm . If you wish to attend the August 5 APA Justice monthly meeting or provide feedback to the web page, please send a message to contact@apajustice.org . 2024/07/23 Press Conference on Professor Franklin Tao WHAT: Press Conference WHO: Professor Franklin Tao, his wife, his lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, Members of Congress, representatives from Asian American civil rights and scientific organizations WHEN: July 23, 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm ET WHERE: Cannon House Office Building, Room 454, Capitol Hill, Washington DC Reverse Brain Drain? Exploring Trends among Chinese Scientists in the U.S. According to an update by the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions (SCCEI) on July 15, 2024, along with native-born Chinese Americans, Chinese immigrants have become a large and visible demographic group in American science, technology, and engineering. However, the pressure of potential federal investigations since the 2018 launch of the "China Initiative" by the U.S. Department of Justice has provided scientists of Chinese descent in the U.S. with higher incentives to leave and lower incentives to apply for federal grants.While most China-born, U.S.-based scientists intend to stay in the U.S., the number leaving has steadily increased. After the Department of Justice implemented the "China Initiative" in 2018, departures increased by 75%, with two-thirds of the relocated scientists moving to China.Surveyed scientists of Chinese descent in the U.S. report anxiety and new difficulties in pursuing their research, with 61% considering leaving the U.S. and 45% avoiding federal grant applications.The update says U.S. science will likely suffer given the loss of scientific talent to China and other countries. Read the SCCEI update: https://stanford.io/3zQOf9P . Nature : China–US Research Collaborations are In Decline According to Nature on July 19, 2024, scientists have been warning that political tensions between China and the United States, combined with the pandemic, have affected research collaborations between the two countries. But it takes time for evidence of this sort of decline to accumulate in research databases. The latest evidence comes from an analysis conducted by Springer Nature ’s team in China. They found that in 2022, the total number papers co-authored by researchers from China and their international peers declined for the first time since 2013.The proportion of research papers with Chinese and international co-authors has been falling for even longer. At its peak, in 2018, 26.6% — roughly 110,000 articles — of China’s output in the InCites database was co-authored with international colleagues. By 2023, the proportion of the country’s articles with international peers had dropped by 7.2%, despite China’s overall number of articles almost doubling to 759,000 over the same period.The drop in internationally co-authored papers is mainly due to China’s declining share of papers published with US researchers, which fell by 6.4% between its peak in 2017 and 2023 — the largest decline of any country included in the analysis. The findings were presented at the Zhongguancun Forum in Beijing on April 25.The decline in US-China collaborations echoes findings from a 2022 analysis conducted for Nature, which found that the number of researchers with dual US and China affiliations on research articles in Elsevier’s Scopus database had fallen by more than 20% between 2019 and 2021. The crackdown under the China Initiative resulted in several scientists being arrested over their ties to collaborators or institutions in China, and has stoked fear among researchers of Chinese descent. Since then, the US government has adopted a range of policies focused on tightening research security. And in July 2023, the Chinese government implemented its revised counter-espionage law, which broadened the definition of what constitutes spying.The crackdown on perceived foreign interference in both the United States and China is making researchers more cautious about collaborating. Restrictive policies and the climate of fear could end up driving talent away from certain countries and fields, leading to a “brain drain and a loss of valuable human capital.” The faltering collaborative ties between the United States and China could also result in the countries pursuing the same types of research separately, increasingly prioritize domestic interests over international cooperation, which could make scientific research a more nationalistic endeavor.Read the Nature report: https://go.nature.com/4cP5h6O . Remembering Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Texas congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (pictured in red above) died in Houston on July 19, 2024, at the age of 74. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was a force in American politics. Born in Queens, New York, she was appointed a municipal court judge in Houston in 1987. She won a place on Houston's City Council two years later. In 1994, she defeated incumbent Congressman Craig Washington in the primary for a solidly Democratic seat. She won the general election that November. She was only the fourth member to represent the district since it was redrawn to represent Houston, following Barbara Jordan , Mickey Leland , and Washington. She wound up holding it for nearly 30 years, longer than all three of her immediate predecessors combined.Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was a local, national and international humanitarian, who fought for racial and criminal justice. She was a fierce champion of the peopleIn March 2020, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee expressed outrage at the uptick in violence against Chinese Americans and pleaded for the President to cease and desist from calling the Coronavirus the Chinese Virus. "Violence directed against individuals on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation is disturbingly prevalent -- and poses significant threats to the Chinese American community during this worldwide pandemic. Domestic terrorism is growing, and these words and attacks only create increasing fear in a time when our nation should be unified and stand together," she said in statement. On February 11, 2023, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee wore the "We Belong" Yellow Whistle and joined hundreds of protesters marching through Houston's Chinatown in opposition to SB 147 - a proposed law that would prohibit Chinese citizens from owning property in Texas. She carried the banner with Texas Representative Gene Wu , Congressman Al Green , and Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner , insisting to complete the entire march. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee also spoke on the stage . "No to SB 147, because the Statue of Liberty has not fallen, and the American flag is still standing," she said. "Stop the Asian hate. Stand for the American flag."We mourn the passing of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and the loss of a true friend of the Asian American community. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/07/23 Press Conference on Professor Franklin Tao2024/07/25-28 Leadership Convention by NAAAP (National Association of Asian American Professionals) 2024/07/27-28 Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony2024/08/04 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/08/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/08/19 DNC Convention, AAPI Briefing & Reception, Chicago, IL2024/09/01 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/09/19-20 AANHPI Unity SummitThe Community Calendar has moved. Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. Back View PDF July 23, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #104 Lieber Verdict; Zaosong Zheng; Shaorong Liu; Upcoming Trials; 01/03 Meeting; Much More #104 Lieber Verdict; Zaosong Zheng; Shaorong Liu; Upcoming Trials; 01/03 Meeting; Much More Back View PDF December 27, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Zaosong Zheng Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #97 DOJ Changed Report; Trial Dates; Yale/Princeton/Stanford/SIU News; Happy Thanksgiving #97 DOJ Changed Report; Trial Dates; Yale/Princeton/Stanford/SIU News; Happy Thanksgiving Back View PDF November 22, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter