Search this site

Newsletter - #397 Maryland Reps at 6/1 Meeting; 6/3 Webinar; ICE Sprayed Andy Kim; CBS Radio Shut Down + #397 Maryland Reps at 6/1 Meeting; 6/3 Webinar; ICE Sprayed Andy Kim; CBS Radio Shut Down + In This Issue #397 · Maryland House Speaker and Delegates to Speak at APA Justice Monthly Meeting on June 1 · June 3 Joint Webinar: Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights · Senator Andy Kim Sprayed by ICE · “Good Night, and Good Luck”: CBS Radio Shuts Down · News and Activities for the Communities Maryland House Speaker and Delegates to Speak at APA Justice Monthly Meeting on June 1 A racist video titled "ChiCom of the Year Award," featuring Maryland Delegates Mark Fisher and Brian Chisholm , was published in early May 2026. It drew widespread bipartisan condemnation from elected officials and community leaders. Watch the WBAL-TV report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd7ZXlGo7wA (2:45). Speaker Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk and Delegate Chao Wu will speak at the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 1, 2026. Maryland Delegate Lily Qi , Chair of the Maryland Legislative Asian American & Pacific Islander Caucus, will also give brief remarks. In addition to the regular speakers: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Director, Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are also honored to welcome these distinguished invited speakers: · Cindy Tsai , Executive Vice President & General Counsel; Committee of 100 · Justin Sadowsky , Legal Director, Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance 华美维权同盟 (CALDA) · Haipei Shue 薛海培 , President, United Chinese Americans Cindy Tsai will provide an update on Committee of 100’s comprehensive database and interactive map tracking alien land bills at both the state and federal levels. Justin Sadowsky will discuss ongoing litigation challenging alien land laws in Texas, Florida, and other states where CALDA is involved. Haipei Shue will report on United Chinese Americans’ grassroots organizing efforts opposing alien land legislation nationwide. Hope Atuel , CEO and Executive Director for Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA), will lead off the Q&A and discussion session. The monthly meetings are by invitation only and closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . June 3 Webinar: Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights WHAT : Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights WHEN : June 3, 2026, 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. ET WHERE : Webinar HOSTS : Committee of 100, US-China Education Trust, APA Justice Moderator : Joanna Derman , Director, Asian American Advancing Justice | AAJC Speakers: · Edgar Chen , Senior Policy Advisor, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association · Frank Wu , President, Queens College DESCRIPTION: The third webinar in this series, co-hosted by the Committee of 100, US-China Education Trust, and APA Justice, examines the downstream effects of U.S. foreign policy through both a historical and contemporary lens. Drawing parallels across time, the conversation will explore how periods of international strain have influenced domestic policies and legal interpretations—from immigration restrictions to citizenship rights—and how these dynamics continue to evolve today. The session will explore how narratives of rivalry and suspicion can translate into real-world consequences for communities with heritage ties to countries at the center of geopolitical tension. We will discuss the tradeoffs policymakers face and provide a nuanced understanding of how national priorities intersect with civil liberties. REGISTRATION : https://bit.ly/3PxYwQt or scan QR code Senator Andy Kim Sprayed by ICE According to 6ABC Philadelphia , CNN , The Guardian , and The Hill , on Monday, May 25, 2026, Senator Andy Kim visited the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, following a hunger and labor strike initiated by detainees. Detainees and their families were protesting conditions within the facility, citing poor food, lack of due process, and limited medical care. After going inside to inspect the conditions and speak with detainees, Senator Kim emerged to find a highly volatile standoff between demonstrators and armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. When ICE officials prepared an armored vehicle and a convoy to move through the crowd of civilians, Kim stepped between the two groups to negotiate a peaceful resolution. During the clash, federal agents fired pepper balls and chemical spray into the crowd. Senator Kim was caught in the spray, resulting in a burning throat and eyes, and required first aid on the scene. Following the incident, Kim publicly condemned the escalation and the conditions at the facility, stating he would continue to push for accountability. Rep. Grace Meng , Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, issued a statement regarding conditions at the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility and the pepper spraying of U.S. Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) by ICE agents: “Members of Congress have a constitutional right and a duty to conduct oversight of federal detention facilities, particularly when lives are at stake. Over the past several days, members of the New Jersey congressional delegation visited the Delaney Hall detention facility and heard disturbing accounts from detained individuals and their families, including reports of inedible food, denial of medical care, and barriers to due process. “During one of these visits, ICE deployed an armored vehicle and a line of armed agents who tackled civilians and fired pepper balls and pepper spray into the crowd—including at CAPAC Executive Member Senator Andy Kim. It is a disgrace and an abuse of power that should alarm every American. If this is how ICE responds to elected officials, it raises grave concerns about how detainees are being treated behind closed doors. “These inspections are more important than ever amid mounting reports of abuse and civil rights violations in federal detention centers. CAPAC members will not be intimidated, and will continue exercising our oversight authority to demand accountability from this lawless agency.” Read the CAPAC statement: https://bit.ly/4dOxYSS “Good Night, and Good Luck”: CBS Radio Shuts Down CBS News Radio permanently signed off on May 22, 2026, ending a legendary 99-year broadcast run. Parent company Paramount Skydance shuttered the network amid deep budget cuts, leaving its remaining 26 staffers unemployed and roughly 700 affiliate stations scrambling for alternative news feeds. Founded in the late 1920s by William S. Paley , CBS Radio revolutionized modern journalism. Its airwaves brought Americans some of history’s most critical moments, from Edward R. Murrow ’s gripping World War II field reports to the immediate coverage of the JFK assassination and 9/11. The network closed its final broadcast with Murrow’s iconic sign-off: "Good night, and good luck." In a report on May 24, 2026, The Spokesman-Review traces the rise and closure of CBS News Radio — the historic network shaped by legendary broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, a graduate of Washington State University (WSU). The report emphasizes Murrow’s enduring legacy in broadcast journalism. Murrow became famous for his courageous World War II reporting from London during the Nazi Blitz and later for exposing the horrors of the Buchenwald concentration camp. But the article especially highlights his role in confronting McCarthyism during the 1950s Red Scare. Murrow used his CBS broadcasts to challenge the fear-driven tactics and accusations of Senator Joseph McCarthy , whose anti-Communist crusade damaged careers, intimidated institutions, and threatened democratic freedoms. Through careful reporting and direct examination of McCarthy’s own words and methods, Murrow helped expose the abuses of McCarthyism and contributed to turning public opinion against the Red Scare. WSU journalism dean Bruce Pinkleton described Murrow’s work as an example of how journalism protects democracy by holding power accountable. Former CBS correspondent Lawrence Pintak similarly argued that Murrow established the ethical standard for broadcast journalism. The article also connects Murrow’s anti-McCarthy legacy to present-day concerns about media consolidation, political pressure on news organizations, shrinking local journalism, and threats to press independence. Several interviewees warned that the loss of independent journalism and concentration of media ownership could weaken democratic accountability in ways reminiscent of past periods of political intimidation and conformity. Ultimately, the article portrays the closure of CBS News Radio not simply as the end of a broadcasting institution, but as a symbolic moment in the broader struggle over journalism’s role in defending democratic values, public accountability, and freedom from political fear campaigns such as McCarthyism. Read The Spokesman-Review Report: https://bit.ly/4fedINa News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/06/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/06/02 Third Annual “State of The Science” Address 2026/06/03 Webinar: Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights 2026/06/10 Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes - Calvin Tsao 2026/06/27-28 From Crisis to Coalition: Lessons from the Front Lines in Minneapolis/St. Paul 2026/06/28-07/01 UCA: 2026 Chinese American ConventionVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Appeals Court Ruling on Yanping Chen v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. On May 22, 2026, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia denied the petition by former Fox reporter Catherine Herridge asking the court to reconsider its previous decision, meaning the original decision stands. Previously, the court dismissed Herridge's motion to unseal certain records as 'moot' (no longer relevant). Now, the court has vacated (undone) that dismissal and sent the motion back to the district court for consideration under a specific local rule. The Freedom of the Press Foundation wanted to join the case to argue for unsealing records. The court dismissed this motion as no longer necessary, but said the Foundation can file a new motion in the district court if it wants. Read the Appeals Court ruling: https://bit.ly/4dKUrln . Read the Yanping Chen case story: https://www.apajusticetaskforce.org/impacted-persons/yanping-chen # # # 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 . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF May 29, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #407 9/1 Monthly Meeting; NSF Rules Need Clarity; Getting Tech for US-China; AASF Symposium #407 9/1 Monthly Meeting; NSF Rules Need Clarity; Getting Tech for US-China; AASF Symposium In This Issue #407 · 2026/09/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · Rice University Experts Warn NSF's Research Security Rules Need Clarity · Getting Tech Right: U.S. China Policy for a New Era · AASF 2026 Frontier & Pioneer Symposium · News and Activities for the Communities 2026/09/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, starting at 1:55 pm ET. Please note that this is a change from the first Monday of each month due to Labor Day being a federal holiday. In addition to updates from: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez KusGisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are honored to welcome the following distinguished speakers: · Rebecca Keiser , Acting Chief of Staff and Chief of Research Security Strategy and Policy, National Science Foundation (NSF) · Sudip Parikh , Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and Executive Publisher, Science Journals · Catherine “Cate” Johnson , Deputy Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policy, Association of American Universities (AAU) The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . DOJ Ruling Adds a New Front to NSF's Policy Upheaval According to Science on August 20, 2026, The Department of Justice's August 12 ruling — finding three long-running NSF diversity programs unconstitutional and ordering an end to $104 million in congressionally appropriated funding — adds another significant policy shift to an agency already reshaping its research security rules. Advocates, including mathematician Freeman Hrabowski and Representative Grace Meng , warn the ruling will undercut U.S. competitiveness in STEM talent development. Taken together with NSF's new research security rules restricting international collaboration, this ruling signals an agency navigating simultaneous pressure on two fronts — who it funds and with whom recipients may work — with implications likely to be felt across the research community, including AAPI scientists and institutions. Rice University Experts Warn NSF's Research Security Rules Need Clarity At APA Justice's August 2026 monthly meeting, Dr. Kenny Evans (Fellow in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Rice University) and Dr. Tam Dao (Associate Vice President of Public Safety and Research Security, Rice University) offered a detailed, on-the-ground assessment of NSF's new research security policy — one that both praised the underlying concept of research security while sharply criticizing how NSF is implementing it. The Core Argument: Right Idea, Wrong Approach Kenny opened by framing research security as reasonable in principle — protecting research from misappropriation and foreign interference is a legitimate goal. His central critique is that NSF's new policy gets the approach wrong. Rather than being researcher-centered — helping scientists collaborate safely while staying in the U.S. — Kenny argued the policy mirrors the Department of War's blanket securitization model, treating fundamental science broadly as a security risk rather than addressing specific, evidenced threats. Kenny identified three core problems with NSF's approach: · No clarity on how it interacts with existing frameworks . NSPM-33 and the CHIPS and Science Act exempt universities with under $50 million in research funding from certain compliance requirements — an exemption notably absent from NSF's new guidance, potentially expanding the number of covered institutions from roughly 180 to as many as 1,800. · The blanket approach itself . Treating all science as inherently a security risk is, in Kenny's view, fundamentally the wrong framework. · No demonstrated evidence of effectiveness . Kenny said there is no clear evidence these policies are working, improving safety, or responding to a sufficient volume of actual research security incidents to justify restrictions this broad. A Policy Landscape Shaped by Leadership Vacuum Kenny connected NSF's approach to the leadership instability — NSF has lacked a Senate-confirmed director since early in the administration, which he said has left a vacuum allowing greater White House control over internal NSF operations, including award reviews and alignment with OMB's uniform guidance. He also drew a direct line to the OMB rule covered in our recent issues, noting that OMB's proposal extends the logic of the Wolf Amendment (which restricts bilateral U.S.-China activities via OSTP and NASA, notably keeping China off the International Space Station) to nearly all federally funded science and a much broader set of countries. (Note: About 88-95% of the 497,000 total comments submitted to the OMB rule change were reportedly opposed, underscoring the scale of concern across the research community.) Rice's Operational Reality: Ambiguity Everywhere Dr. Tam Dao followed with a practical account of how Rice University is actually interpreting NSF's Dear Colleague Letter — and flagged that much of its language remains operationally undefined, leaving universities to guess at compliance: · Scope of "collaboration" is unclear : Does the restricted-entity ban apply only to the specific NSF-funded grant, or extend to a researcher's other, non-NSF funding and activities? · Full severance vs. grant-specific restriction : NSF says it will follow the Department of War's approach, which reportedly requires researchers to fully cut ties with restricted entities before receiving funding — raising the question of whether NSF intends the same complete severance, rather than a narrower restriction tied only to the funded project. · No clarity on retrospective review : DOW reportedly reviews researchers' past collaborations going back 4–5 years and allows explanations or mitigation of flagged relationships. NSF's letter does not address whether it will do the same, and Tam's own reading is that such explanations likely would not be considered sufficient under NSF's approach. · Inconsistent restricted-entity lists across agencies : NSF reportedly maintains around 12 separate restricted-entity lists that do not fully align with those used by DOE, NIH, ARPA-H, or other agencies — creating significant confusion for researchers who hold multiple federal grants. · Undefined "research support" : It remains unclear whether something as informal as hosting a visiting student or having a lab conversation with someone from a restricted entity would count as prohibited support, even if that person isn't formally part of the NSF-funded project. Tam also raised a broader concern about lost flexibility: many valuable collaborations are low-risk but high-benefit — for instance, accessing specialized technical expertise unavailable domestically — and the new rules eliminate researchers' ability to make individualized, evidence-based risk/benefit judgments, even in cases where a collaboration would clearly benefit the U.S. more than the foreign partner. Tam said Rice's near-term priority is awareness and education. The university is proactively informing faculty — particularly those with long-standing, deeply personal international collaborations built over decades — that changes take effect in October, and has begun the complex work of helping them audit existing collaborations, materials purchases, and international relationships against the various restricted-entity lists. Why This Matters for the APA Community Kenny and Tam's presentation offers a valuable, concrete complement to the policy-level coverage APA Justice has provided on NSF's China collaboration ban and the OMB grantmaking rule — showing how the ambiguity in these policies translates into real compliance burdens and uncertainty for researchers and institutions, including the many scientists of Chinese and Asian descent whose international collaborations are most directly affected. Rice's experience may be broadly instructive for how other universities are — or should be — approaching this transition ahead of the effective date. A summary of the August 2026 APA Justice monthly meeting summary is being prepared at this time. Getting Tech Right: U.S. China Policy for a New Era WHAT : Getting Tech Right: U.S. China Policy for a New Era WHEN : September 11, 2026, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET WHERE : In-Person Event: 555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001 HOST : Johns Hopkins SAIS Institute for America, China, and the Future of Global Affairs (ACF) DESCRIPTION: This is an in-person event convening experts and leaders in the private and public sectors to examine the full landscape of U.S.-China technological relations — with a focus on AI, EVs, and biotech, among other technologies. The forum will consider where technology ties with China pose genuine security risks and where such connections might advance American prosperity, peace, and stability. One goal of the conference is to understand how China’s technology ecosystem actually works, including the role of government and private business. Based on this more granular and accurate foundation, participants will assess where and how the two countries can connect securely amid low trust. Can the American and Chinese tech stacks be secure and interoperable without unacceptable vulnerabilities? Finally, how are both societies navigating the shared sense of precarity that rapid technological change is producing? What common guardrails and approaches to AI safety and governance are needed? REGISTRATION : https://bit.ly/4xfZPUO AASF 2026 Frontier & Pioneer Symposium The Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), in partnership with Stanford University's Asian American Research Center, convened its 2026 Frontier & Pioneer Symposium from August 7–9 at Stanford — a three-day gathering that drew over 2,000 registrants and nearly 90 speakers, moderators, and session leaders, marking AASF's fifth anniversary and third annual symposium. It honored scientific pioneers amid a turbulent year for science and research. Three-Day Program The program opened August 7 with the Frontier Symposium, continued August 8 with the Pioneer Symposium & Ceremony, and closed August 9 with a Policy Forum held in partnership with the Hoover Institution's program on the U.S., China, and the World. Featured speakers included Nobel laureates Steven Chu 朱棣文 , Syukuro Manabe , Randy W. Schekman , Samuel C. C. Ting 丁肇中 , and Carl Wieman ; Fields Medalist Terence Tao 陶哲轩 ; AI pioneers Jeff Dean and Fei-Fei Li 李飞飞 ; National Academy of Engineering President Tsu-Jae King Liu 劉金智潔 ; former NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan ; and former OMB Deputy Director Nani A. Coloretti , among many others from academia, industry, and government. Honoring Pioneers, Past and Present AASF presented the 2026 Asian American Pioneer Medal to five honorees: Dr. Louise T. Chow 周芷 , for discovering RNA splicing; Dr. Narinder Singh Kapany (posthumous), for pioneering fiber optics; Dr. Syukuro Manabe , for transforming climate science; Professor Terence Tao 陶哲轩 , for advances spanning prime-number theory to compressed sensing; and Professor Samuel C. C. Ting 丁肇中 , for discovering the J/ψ particle and revealing the charm quark. The Asian American Justice Medal went to two trailblazers, both honored posthumously: Senator Hiram Fong 鄺友良 , first Chinese American and first Asian American United States Senator, and Larry Itliong , honored for his labor rights activism. Science at the Frontier Sessions spanned artificial intelligence, quantum computing, energy, and the life sciences. Louise T. Chow 周芷 revisited her discovery of RNA splicing and its lasting impact on gene expression research. Steven Chu 朱棣文 discussed progress and unresolved challenges in battery storage, solar power, and climate. Yi Cui 崔屹 , the symposium's Program Co-Chair, highlighted advances in silicon-anode batteries and grid-scale storage. Jeff Dean , in his first public appearance since leaving Google after 27 years, discussed AI's growing role in accelerating scientific discovery. Fei-Fei Li 李飞飞 explored AI's evolution toward spatial and physical intelligence, while urging the audience to preserve human agency as a design principle. Terence Tao 陶哲轩 examined how AI is reshaping mathematical research, and Samuel C. C. Ting 丁肇中 reflected on five decades of experimental physics, from the J/ψ discovery to his ongoing search for dark matter aboard the International Space Station. Research and Mentorship Roundtables held over lunch on August 7 and 8 gave students and early-career researchers direct access to leading scientists and AASF Fellows in smaller, cross-generational settings. A Policy Forum Confronting the Moment The symposium's third day turned directly to the political headwinds facing American science, from the OMB grantmaking rule to NSF's leadership upheaval and the broader research "brain drain." The Policy Forum was jointly organized by the Hoover Institution and AASF. The co-chairs of the forum were Glenn Tiffert , Distinguished Research Fellow & Co-Chair of the Program on the US, China, and the World at the Hoover Institution, and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF). Dr. Karen Korematsu , daughter of the Late Civil Rights Icon Fred T. Korematsu , and Founder and President of the Fred T. Korematsu Institute, delivered the opening keynote. The Policy Forum examined federal research funding, civil rights and science, U.S.-China competition, and public service leadership, featuring Sethuraman Panchanathan ; Nani A. Coloretti ; Reps. Ted Lieu and Sam Liccardo; former Rep. Mike Honda ; Arun Majumdar , Inaugural Dean of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University; Steven Chu 朱棣文 ; Margaret (Maggie) Lewis , Professor, Seton Hall Law School; Gang Chen 陈刚 , Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, MIT; Keith Yamamoto , Vice Chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Francisco; Jason Liang , Trial Lawyer and Founding Partner, Liang Ly LLP; and Graham Webster , Editor-in-Chief of the DigiChina Project, Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. Coming at a moment when we have reported extensively on threats to the research enterprise — from the OMB rule's restrictions on international collaboration to reports of prominent scientists departing U.S. institutions for opportunities abroad — this symposium offered a striking counter-narrative: a celebration of Asian American scientific achievement at the highest levels, convened by the same community organizations, including AASF fellow Peter Michelson 's network, that have been most vocal in defending the research ecosystem this year. The gathering's scale and caliber of honorees underscore what the Asian Pacific American community stands to lose if current funding and immigration pressures continue to drive talent away. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/08/26 C100: An Advice and Networking Event (Technology) 2026/09/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/09/03 C100: Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes - Hao Jiang Tian 2026/09/11 Getting Tech Right: U.S. China Policy for a New EraVisit 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 . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF August 24, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Contact Us First name Last name Email Message Submit Thanks for submitting!

Reflecting on Prof. Gang Chen’s Case & Looking Ahead to the Future of the China Initiative 2022 Gang Chen Acquittal Sunday, January 30, 2022 On January 30, 2022, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), Advancing Justice| AAJC, APA Justice, and the Brennan Center for Justice co-hosted a webinar titled "Reflecting on Professor Gang Chen's Case and Looking Ahead to the Future of the China Initiative." The goal of this webinar is to examine the attempted prosecution of Prof. Chen in order to challenge the injustices resulting from the Justice Department’s “China Initiative.” We hope to educate lawyers, journalists, policy makers, academic leaders, and community members about the harmful impacts of the “China Initiative,” so that they can better contribute to the effort to bring the initiative to an end. Webinar 20220130G.jpg Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #265 Meeting Summaries; OSTP Guidelines; Scientists Speak Up; CAPAC and AASF Updates; + #265 Meeting Summaries; OSTP Guidelines; Scientists Speak Up; CAPAC and AASF Updates; + In This Issue #265 · June and July 2024 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Summaries Posted · Updates on OSTP Guidelines by Kei Koizumi · Observations and Remarks by Impacted Scientists · Updates from Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus · Updates from Asian American Scholar Forum · News and Activities for the Communities June and July 2024 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Summaries Posted Summary for the June 2024 APA Justice monthly meeting has been posted here: https://bit.ly/45Zilni . Summary for the July 2024 APA Justice monthly meeting has been posted here: https://bit.ly/3Wc9NX0 . We extend our heartfelt thanks to the speakers who shared their valuable insights and reports during our monthly meetings, including regular speakers: · Nisha Ramachandran , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), nisha.ramachandran@mail.house.gov · Joanna YangQing Derman , Director, Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), gpkusakawa@aasforum.org and invited speakers and commentators: · Tam Dao , Assistant Vice President for Research Security, Office of Research Security, Rice University · Haipei Shue , President, United Chinese Americans · Anming Hu , Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville · Kei Koizumi , Principal Deputy Director for Science, Society, and Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), The White House · Neal Lane , Senior Fellow, Baker Institute; Former Director of OSTP; Former Director, National Science Foundation · Xiaoxing Xi , Laura H. Carnell Professor of Physics, Temple University · Gang Chen , Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Karla Hagan , Senior Program Officer, Staff Director for National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine Updates on OSTP Guidelines by Kei Koizumi In August 2021, the White House tasked OSTP with setting clear rules for research security and researcher responsibility. It charged OSTP with protecting America’s research security while ensuring policies do not fuel xenophobia or prejudice. As part of the OSTP effort, the NSF commissioned two studies by JASON, an independent group of scientists with unique expertise that advises the U.S. government on national security matters related to science and technology. · 2024/03/21 JASON Report: Safeguarding the Research Enterprise · 2021/08/10 White House: Clear Rules for Research Security and Researcher Responsibility o Protect America’s Security and Openness; Be Clear; Ensure Policies Do Not Fuel Xenophobia or Prejudice · 2019/12 JASON Report: Fundamental Research Security During the July 1 APA Justice monthly meeting, Kei Koizumi , Principal Deputy Director for Science, Society, and Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), The White House, was hoping to share the final version of a research security standards document requested by Congress and outlined in a presidential memorandum. This document aims to provide universities and Federal research agencies with clear guidelines on running research security programs. Unfortunately, its release has been delayed.Kei remains hopeful that it will be released in the coming days, offering clarity to the Asian American research community and universities on how to maintain an open, international, collaborative research enterprise in the U.S. while protecting against foreign government exploitation.A key element of this document is the longstanding prohibition against actions that exacerbate anti-Asian bias or prejudice. Implementing the final guidance will be a collaborative effort for all of us. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force the Department of Justice to reinstate the China Initiative. In addition, OSTP is reviewing proposals in draft intelligence and national defense bills that would prohibit citizens of certain countries, specifically the People's Republic of China, from visiting or working in Federal and national laboratories, regardless of their visa or visitor status.The administration will oppose this legislation, as it did with reinstating the China Initiative in last year’s Appropriations Bill.This is where our community must play defense against some harmful ideas circulating in Congress. With this being an election year, opposing bad legislation is even more challenging than usual.Kei is grateful that Dr. Neal Lane and a coalition hosted the FBI Forum and that the National Academies will soon complete its important work on research security through the Roundtable.Kei is also eager to hear from us, particularly at the state level. He is concerned about bills and laws in various states that restrict Asian Americans, especially Chinese Americans, from buying property or impose extra screening to participate in academic environments at many state universities.Read Kei's comments in the July 1 monthly meeting summary: https://bit.ly/3Wc9NX0 . UPDATE: On July 9, 2024, the White House OSTP released Guidelines for Research Security Programs at Covered Institutions. The 10-page Guidelines is posted here: https://bit.ly/3xQgRzj . ".... federal research agencies should implement research security policies in a way that treats everyone equally under law, without xenophobia, prejudice, or discrimination, a principle reinforced by the CHIPS and Science Act. The law also requires that research security activities be carried out in a manner that does not target, stigmatize, or discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin," the Guidelines said. REMINDER: The National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable Capstone Workshop will be held on July 16-17, 2024, in Washington DC and virtually. For more information, visit https://bit.ly/3z0PnY7 . Register to attend the workshop: https://bit.ly/3VirGle . Observations and Remarks by Impacted Scientists Professor Xiaoxing Xi is a naturalized American citizen who has lived and worked in the U.S. for 35 years. On May 21, 2015, the U.S. government charged Professor Xi for scheming to violate a non-disclosure agreement by sharing U.S. company technology with Chinese entities. Professor Xi committed no crime and was supported by affidavits from leading scientific experts, as well as one of the inventors of the U.S. company technology himself. On September 11, 2015, the government dropped all charges against Professor Xi without an apology or explanation. With support of ACLU, Professor Xi and his family filed a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government in 2017. He is the recipient of the 2020 Andrei Sakharov Prize, a distinguished honor within both the human rights advocacy and scientific communities. Professor Xi joined the meeting from Europe, where he gave a slide presentation on his personal experiences as an impacted scientist. He recounted the traumatic events of May 2015, when armed FBI agents raided his home, held his wife and daughters at gunpoint, and arrested him for a crime he did not commit. This ordeal had a profound and lasting impact on his career and his family's lives, as well as on Professor Gang Chen and others who were also falsely charged by the Department of Justice (DOJ).Many of these cases were dropped, although it is rare for the DOJ to drop cases. In his presentation to the OSTP community briefing in January 2022, Professor Xi attributed the problem to policies that diminish the U.S.'s ability to attract talent and fuel xenophobia against Asian Americans. He highlighted that the FBI Director referred to Chinese scientists and academics as "non-traditional collectors," suggesting they act as spies without formal training on behalf of the Chinese Government. This term, used during Congressional testimonies, portrays anyone with connections to China as a “whole-of-society” threat to the U.S. Professor Xi believes this is the root cause of the cases targeting Chinese scientists.In the spirit of rebuilding trust with the FBI, as seen in the June 6 Forum in Houston, Professor Xi suggests that the FBI Director and leadership should publicly affirm that “ all Chinese scientists are not non-traditional collectors ” and should not label them as suspected spies. This is essential to restore trust.There have been persistent attempts to reinstate the China Initiative. As long as the assumption that Chinese scientists are suspected of espionage prevails, the China Initiative is still active, leading to more such activities.In February 2023, the DOJ established the Disruptive Technology Strike Force to enforce export control laws and investigate and prosecute criminal violations of these laws. As more institutions are added to the entity list, interactions with scientists from these institutions will increase. These Chinese institutions include the Institute of Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Science and Technology, which are equivalent to Caltech and MIT in the U.S. In March 2023, Science Magazine asked the OSTP Director, Dr. Arati Prabhakar , if Chinese-born scientists working in the United States have been unfairly persecuted as agents of the Chinese Communist Party and are owed an apology from the government. Dr. Prabhakar responded, "I’m not in a position to comment on that. I don’t know enough about it." This response raised concerns about policymakers' commitment to addressing the plight of scientists. Dr. Prabhakar has since provided additional clarifications, and Science Magazine has updated its story.However, Dr. Prabhakar has repeatedly stated that "the world has changed." This statement gives Professor Xi a clear perspective on the direction of U.S. Government science policy, despite reports and recommendations from the scientific community on how to protect U.S. technology from China.For example, in September 2022, the National Academies released a report on Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage. It emphasized that in today’s interdependent, global innovation system, the greatest threat is the potential weakening of the U.S. innovation ecosystem. Protecting and strengthening this ecosystem is more important than protecting specific technologies, which can be ineffective and self-damaging.The innovative ecosystem requires openness and the ability of the U.S. to attract scientists from around the world.The 2024 JASON report also emphasizes openness and transparency. It advises the National Science Foundation (NSF) to adopt a dynamic approach for identifying potentially sensitive research topics as they arise, rather than maintaining a comprehensive list of sensitive areas. The NSF should proceed with caution before adding access or dissemination controls to grants or contracts. But that is not what the policy makers, including the White House, are doing. The CHIPS and Science Act includes provisions that prohibit Federal funding for participants in malign foreign talent recruitment programs sponsored by countries of concern, with a definition codified as 42 USC 19237 (4). This situation creates a chilling effect, where people, including Professor Xi, may avoid collaborating with scientists from China for fear of being considered part of a malign foreign talent recruitment program and being barred from Federal funding. In two February 2024 documents, OSTP provided guidelines on a long list of international collaborations not considered part of a foreign talent recruitment program, including memberships in the Royal Society, sabbaticals at University of Oxford or McGill University, and receiving the Nobel Prize. However, it did not clarify whether sabbaticals in China or memberships in the Chinese Academy of Sciences would be considered part of a malign foreign talent recruitment program. Professor Xi seeks clarification in the new OSTP guidelines expected to be released soon.Can a scientist collaborate with China? NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan stated in a post on X, “By working together with our international like-minded partners to strengthen and scale collaborations … we will supercharge powerful global innovation ecosystems.”So, openness has conditions. While we want openness and collaboration with like-minded partners, this does not extend to people from countries of concern. The Deputy Secretary of State recently expressed a desire to see more Chinese students studying humanities and social sciences in the U.S., but not particle physics. He suggested that students from India could fill the gap in science studies.The message from policymakers is clear: no collaboration with scientists in China and no Chinese students in STEM. This stance contradicts the recommendations of the National Academies report and the JASON report.A possible explanation is the OSTP Director’s response to Science Magazine: "The world has changed." The U.S. and China, once at peace, are now at war. These conflicts include trade wars and geopolitical wars in technology, which have been ongoing and could escalate to military wars. During the last major conflict with an Asian country, the U.S. government interned 120,000 Japanese persons. We are now at war with China. We are now at risk of similar internment. Labeling all Chinese scientists as suspected spies is akin to suggesting that Japanese Americans during WWII signaled incoming warplanes from Japan. This underscores the importance of ongoing efforts by allies in OSTP, the scientific community, and interactions with the FBI, CAPAC, and Congress to push back and prevent a repeat of such internment. Persistent mistrust and xenophobia against Chinese and Asian American scientists are fueled by policies and rhetoric that unfairly label them as spies. Professor Xi calls for a change in these policies, advocating for a more inclusive and supportive environment that values the contributions of all scientists, regardless of their ethnic background, as the scientific community has already recommended.In conclusion, Professor Xi underscored the importance of openness and international collaboration in maintaining the United States' leadership in science and technology. He criticized restrictive policies that hinder collaboration with scientists from China and warned against the long-term damage such policies could cause to the nation's innovation ecosystem. Professor Xi’s presentation is posted at https://bit.ly/3W3SN5f . His remarks are included in the July meeting summary: https://bit.ly/3Wc9NX0 . ***** Gang Chen , Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, joined the meeting from Taiwan, expressing his gratitude to Professor Xi for his courage in speaking out and to Kei Koizumi and Neal Lane for their insightful comments. Professor Chen, himself a victim of the misguided China Initiative, finds it disheartening to witness persistent efforts to reinstate the initiative, whether under its original name or disguised under a different one. He emphasized the findings of the National Academies report, which highlighted that the greatest threat to the U.S. is the weakening of its innovation ecosystem. The China Initiative and similar U.S. policies have driven away many talented individuals, diminishing the country's appeal not only to researchers of Chinese origin but to scientists in general. The CHIPS and Science Act's definition of a malign foreign talent program is so broad that it could potentially label many CEOs of major U.S. companies as participants in such programs. There is widespread uncertainty about how these rules will be applied, but those in academia feel particularly targeted. Many are afraid to attend conferences or give seminars in China. Universities share this fear as well. A faculty member recounted to Professor Chen that during a visit to his family in China, he asked a University Security Officer if he could meet his colleagues and friends at a local university. The officer suggested holding the meeting off-campus, highlighting the tense atmosphere. Such policies are detrimental to scientific exchange and ultimately harm the U.S. innovation ecosystem. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries, has been tracking new researchers by country every year. Before 2018, the U.S. consistently gained new researchers each year, with over 2,000 new researchers in 2018 alone. However, since then, the trend has reversed, and by 2021, the U.S. experienced a net loss of new researchers. This trend is strong evidence of the damaging effect of the China Initiative. Professor Chen's remarks are included in the July meeting summary: https://bit.ly/3Wc9NX0 . Updates from Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus During the June APA Justice monthly meeting, Nisha Ramachandran , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), reported that May, the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, was likely the busiest month of the year for CAPAC. She was pleased to have met many of us during this time.Congress is gearing up for a busy legislative summer, particularly in the House. The Agriculture Committee has begun the mark-up of the next Farm Bill. The appropriations process is also underway, moving towards mark-ups after members submitted their priorities. In addition, the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is in progress.CAPAC is closely monitoring civil rights issues for Asian Americans, especially regarding research security and land and property ownership. There are efforts to reinstate the China Initiative, which CAPAC is actively tracking. Nisha encouraged everyone to stay vigilant and collaborate with CAPAC members on these issues across various committees. She expressed special thanks to Asian American Scholar Forum and Advancing Justice | AAJC for their partnerships.Nisha also mentioned a Bloomberg article about students being turned away at Dulles Airport and other ports of entry, highlighting this growing issue. CAPAC is tracking these developments and needs the community’s support to balance all interests.Finally, June is National Immigrant Heritage Month, and CAPAC will be uplifting immigrant stories throughout the month.As Nisha was about to provide an update from CAPAC during the July monthly meeting, she was called away. Casey Lee , Policy Director for CAPAC, stepped in to report on a critical issue closely monitored by CAPAC. The Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2025 underwent its subcommittee markup. According to the Appropriations Committee’s press release, the China Initiative is included once again in the accompanying report language for the bill. The legislative process will proceed to a full committee markup, scheduled for July 9. CAPAC, along with many of our champions such as Rep. Grace Meng , will ensure it is monitored very closely.We are once again witnessing an attempt to revive the China Initiative in Congress. CAPAC will continue to oppose this effort. Casey encouraged the community to reach out to CAPAC with any questions and expressed appreciation for the advocacy and voices present at the monthly meeting. Updates from Asian American Scholar Forum During the July APA Justice monthly meeting, Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), highlighted the ongoing engagement of AASF with the White House, Congress (particularly CAPAC), and various Federal agencies, emphasizing the contributions of Asian American scholars to American society. This engagement has garnered nearly 400 million potential views through its news coverage. AASF's top priority is ensuring that issues facing Asian American scholars remain at the forefront for national leaders.Not all AASF activities are publicly visible; some occur behind closed doors, such as roundtable discussions with the National Science Foundation and university leaders. These efforts include a briefing to the Department of Homeland Security Subcommittee on Foreign Malign Influence in Higher Education, contributing to their recent subcommittee report. AASF anticipates another significant effort with Federal agencies will soon be made public.AASF consistently recommends greater transparency, clarity, and ongoing feedback from the Asian American scholar community to Federal agencies. Their efforts aim to change perspectives within the Federal government, media, and public while also building a community. AASF aims to establish a permanent non-profit organization to protect the rights of Asian American scholars and celebrate their excellence and contributions.On July 27, 2024, AASF will co-host the inaugural Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony with Stanford University. This public event will also feature roundtables and listening sessions with Federal government representatives on July 28. Distinguished speakers, including Nobel Laureates Steven Chu and Randy Shekman , Turing Award Laureate Raj Reddy , former Stanford President John Hennessy , and industry leader Eric Yuan , will participate. CAPAC Chair Judy Chu will open the Symposium and ceremony. Register for the Symposium and Ceremony here: https://bit.ly/3XLApPN . In addition, AASF is co-hosting a Presidential Town Hall with APIAVote and other partners in Philadelphia on July 13, ahead of the upcoming November elections. The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act on June 14, which includes provisions related to research security, potentially restricting collaboration for researchers and universities receiving Department of Defense (DOD) funding. AASF will focus on the conferencing stage as the Senate considers its version of the bill next.Regarding the Appropriations Bill, AASF is leading efforts with nearly 50 organizations, including APA Justice, to oppose restrictive language in this must-pass bill. They will closely monitor the July 9 markup session. AASF is also promoting the Youth Ambassador Science Video Competition, encouraging participation to highlight the involvement of the next generation in their efforts. Visit the AASF website and subscribe to the AASF newsletter at AASF .Gisela reported on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and AASF's commitment to ensuring that Asian American scholars have a voice by monitoring the bill and gathering feedback from AASF members and the Asian American scholar community on issues like research security. AASF is keeping a close eye on HR 1398, the Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from the CCP Act, which attempts to revive the China Initiative and increase scrutiny of the scholar community. AASF plans to make a strong statement highlighting the exhaustive attempts by the House to reinstate the China Initiative, emphasizing the need for Congressional members to reconsider these efforts. This is crucial for the Asian American scholar community and the country, which benefits from the contributions of immigrant talent in science and technology. Gisela can be reached at gpkusakawa@aasforum.org . News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/07/11-12 National AAPI Leadership Summit2024/07/13 APIAVote: Presidential Town Hall, Philadelphia PA2024/07/15 APIAVote: RNC Convention, AAPI Briefing &Reception, Milwaukee, WI2024/07/16-17 National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable - Capstone2024/07/17 C100 Career Ceiling Summit: Creating a Level Playing Field2024/07/25-28 Leadership Convention by NAAAP (National Association of Asian American Professionals) 2024/07/27-28 Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and CeremonyThe Community Calendar has moved. Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Committee of 100 Career Ceilings Summit: Creating a Level Playing Field WHAT: Committee of 100 Career Ceilings Summit: Creating a Level Playing Field WHEN: July 17, 2024, 11:00 am - 2 pm ET WHERE: Webcast HOST: Committee of 100 MODERATOR: Peter Young , Chair of the Initiative and Committee of 100 Member DESCRIPTION: · 11:10 am ET: Fireside Chat ( Ngan Nguyen , Senior Vice President, Global Diversity & Talent Management, Citi) and Open Discussion: “The Future of DEI: Can it Pivot?” · 12: 30 pm ET: Keynote Speech: “Lessons Learned” ( Cecilia Stanton Adams , CEO of The Diversity Institute) · 1:00 pm ET: Town Hall Discussion: “Breaking Through Career Ceilings: Choices and Solutions” ( Adrian Kwok , Associate Partner, McKinsey, Co-Head of the Asian DEI Group and Frank Wu , President, Queens College, Leading expert on Asian American Career Ceilings) REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3WgevmT 3. New Book: "The War for Chinese Talent in America" A new book authored by Dr. David Zweig , has just been released with the title of "The War for Chinese Talent in America: The Politics of Technology and Knowledge in Sino-U.S. Relations."Dr. Zweig is Professor Emeritus, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), Distinguished Visiting Professor of Taipei School of Economics and Political Science, National Tsinghua University, Taiwan, and Vice-President of the Center for China and Globalization (Beijing). He was a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard in 1984-85. For 15 years, he directed the Center on China’s Transnational Relations at HKUST.To overcome their “brain drain,” some developing countries employ the “Diaspora Option,” encouraging their overseas nationals to use the knowledge they gained abroad to help their motherland. Since the mid-1990s, China’s party/state has vigorously used an extensive array of programs and incentives to persuade ethnic Chinese living in America to transfer their technological knowhow back home. Many Chinese working abroad facilitated this flow, some to strengthen their former homeland, others from self-interest. In 2018, the Trump Administration declared war on these efforts. Employing a McCarthy-like campaign called the “China Initiative,” the government investigated Chinese scientists across the U.S. Many individuals were arrested, only to have their cases dropped. Still, hundreds had their research disrupted or lost their jobs. This book documents China’s ‘no-holds-barred’ effort to access U.S. technology and America’s vigorous counterattack and its efforts to disrupt the transfer of U.S. technology to China. Six case studies include stories of unknown victims of that campaign whose cases were never made public. It highlights how the war has undermined Sino-American scientific collaboration and triggered the outflow of some top Chinese talent from America and back to China.For more information and to order the book, visit: https://bit.ly/45ZqFDz 4. New Book Chapter: "New Red Scare - The China Initiative" A chapter titled "New Red Scare - The China Initiative," authored by Steven Pei , Jeremy Wu , and Alex Liang , has just been released in the book "Communicated Stereotypes at Work."Steven Pei is an electrical engineering professor at the University of Houston. He is also Founding Chair of United Chinese Americans and a co-organizer of the APA Justice Task Force. Jeremy Wu retired from the U.S. federal government, He is Founder and Co-Organizer of the APA Justice Task Force, a Senior Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, and a Member of the Committee of 100. Alex Liang was Fox International Fellow at the Australian National University. He is a second-year student at Harvard Law School.The FBI has a long history of surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S. McCarthyism, the Economic Espionage Act, and more recently the China Initiative were initiatives adversely impacting Chinese and Chinese Americans living in the United States. The cases of Qian Xuesen , Wen Ho Lee , Sherry Chen , and Xiaoxing Xi were the precursors and indicators of an implicit and explicit bias against Asian Americans questioning their “loyalty” to the United States. Why is it that time and again Chinese Americans are falsely accused of being spies for China? 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 for them and their families.For more information and to order the book, visit: https://bit.ly/4c7v61x 5. Erratum On July 8, 2024, APA Justice newsletter Issue #264 misspelled the name of the President of the National Academy of Sciences. It should be Marcia McNutt . The corrected newsletter is posted here: https://bit.ly/4eWRZXa Back View PDF July 11, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

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

Newsletter - #18 09/30 Webinar Reminder; 10/05 APA Justice Meeting; More Webinars #18 09/30 Webinar Reminder; 10/05 APA Justice Meeting; More Webinars Back View PDF September 29, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #225 Section 702; Pushback Alien Land Bills; Carter Center; "China Initiative" Revival; + #225 Section 702; Pushback Alien Land Bills; Carter Center; "China Initiative" Revival; + In This Issue #225 · Reminder: Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA · Asian American Groups Pushed Back Against 17 GOP Governors on Alien Land Bills · China Focus, the Carter Center and Conference for 45th Anniversary of U.S.-China Relations · Over 40 Organizations Oppose Appropriations Proposal to Reinstate the China Initiative · News and Activities for the Communities Reminder: Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA WHAT: Webinar - Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA: Sweeping Reforms to Warrantless Surveillance Initiative WHEN: December 12, 2023, 2-3 pm ET/11-12 noon PT HOSTS: Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), Advancing Justice | AAJC, APA Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) MODERATOR: Eri Andriola , Associate Director of Policy & Litigation, AASF SPEAKERS: · Noah Chauvin, Counsel, Liberty & National Security, Brennan Center for Justice · Joanna YangQing Derman, Director of Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights, and National Security, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa, Executive Director, AASF · Andy Wong, Managing Director of Advocacy, CAA DESCRIPTION: The briefing will feature civil rights, national security, and policy experts, who will break down what Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is and how it impacts Asian American communities. Panelists will discuss the key reform bills at play, including the Government Surveillance Reform Act (GSRA) and the Protecting Liberty and Ending Warrantless Surveillance Act (PLEWSA), and how the Asian American community and advocates can get involved on this issue. REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/41ejxkG Breaking News: Do not miss the opportunity to attend the community briefing and learn how it may impact us individually and collectively for years to come. As early as Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson will bring a significant expansion of warrantless surveillance, known as the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act ( H.R.6611 ), to the House floor. This bill, dubbed "PATRIOT Act 2.0," poses a significant threat to privacy. Among other things, it vastly widens the scope of businesses eligible to be compelled to give the government access to their systems without a warrant and grossly expands warrantless surveillance of all people seeking to travel to the U.S. Read more from the Brennan Center on this radical expansion of Section 702. Asian American Groups Pushed Back Against 17 GOP Governors on Alien Land Bills According to AsAmNews on December 7, 2023, several Asian American groups including APA Justice push back a letter from 17 Republican governors calling on President Joe Biden to crack down on Chinese ownership of private land in the U.S.The letter instigated by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders called on Biden and congressional leaders to use “all available tools to prevent continued acquisition of American lands by adversarial foreign governments and entities.” “Committee of 100 believes that if such restrictions become law, they will make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals in the U.S. on long-term visas to purchase a home and are likely to lead to direct discrimination against any individuals of Chinese American or AAPI descent,” said the Committee of 100. Florida has already enacted a law that bans ownership in the state by Chinese citizens. A lawsuit against the Florida state law is ongoing. The Congressional Research Service says 14 other states have enacted similar laws with more than 20 states considering their own bills. “As Americans, we are all concerned about national security but when elected officials whip up fear painting an entire group whether based on race, ethnicity and or national origin, you have to ask what is the real agenda and purpose,” Cynthia Choi , a founder of Stop AAPI Hate and co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action said. APA Justice has been tracking various state alien land bills and local media reports across the nation, but have not found substantive factual evidence to support the rhetoric of security threats of foreign land ownership in the U.S. by China. Farm Progress reported that China has only 19 acres in Nebraska out of 800,000 acres of Nebraska land that are owned or controlled through leases by foreign entities. Canada is the largest foreign holder of land in the state and in the nation. Investigate Midwest reported that the only Oklahoma land owned by a Chinese company is a combined 2,571 acres held by Smithfield Foods, a large pork producer that moved into the state several years ago." says while foreign landownership in Nebraska has spiked in recent years, Chinese landowners have not contributed to that increase.A bill introduced by Rep Judy Chu (D-CA) and Rep Al Green (D-TX) would ban states from enacting such laws based on citizenship and race. The Preemption of Real Property Discrimination Act would move that authority to the federal government.Read the AsAmNews report: https://bit.ly/3t1A3YD China Focus, the Carter Center and Conference for 45th Anniversary of U.S.-China Relations China Focus, headed by long-time China expert Dr. Yawei Liu , is the primary team at the Carter Center working on issues related to China. Dr. Liu has been in charge of the Center’s China program for over two decades. While adapting to the demands of the 21st century, the Carter Center remains committed to preserving the legacy of President Jimmy Carter and Deng Xiaoping ’s historic decision to normalize diplomatic relations between the United States and China.The Carter Center’s China Focus fosters greater dialogue, exchange, and critical reflection on the past, present, and future of U.S.-China relations. The China Focus produces original scholarship that provides action-oriented insights for advancing U.S.-China engagement. The China Focus organizes a range of activities designed to enhance mutual understanding of American and Chinese interests.The China Focus engages the U.S. and China online. The Center publishes two websites focused on bilateral relations and U.S.-China public opinion. These are the English- and Chinese-language U.S.-China Perception Monitor websites. Content includes a wide variety of interviews with American and Chinese scholars, insightful analyses of U.S.-China relations, surveys of Chinese public opinion, profiles of key opinion leaders in the bilateral relationship, translations of influential commentaries into English or Chinese, and more. Conference for 45th Anniversary of U.S.-China Relations On January 9, 2024, the Carter Center, the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and the U.S.-China Business Council will host a public in-person event to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Through keynote speeches and panel discussions, the event will bring together experts to discuss the legacy, controversies, and future of U.S.-China engagement. For more information, please visit: https://bit.ly/46SW8pO Over 40 Organizations Oppose Appropriations Proposal to Reinstate the China Initiative According to a press release by the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), 45 organizations led by AASF and a coalition of Asian American and allied partners who worked to end the Department of Justice’s “China Initiative” sent a letter to Congress on December 7, 2023, to oppose legislative language that would reinstate the “China Initiative” in the House version of the FY 2024 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations bill ( H.R. 5893 ) and any future iterations of the Initiative. The proposal would reverse the decision to end the “China Initiative”—a devastating program ended last year that raised serious concerns of racial profiling and targeting of Asian Americans and immigrants, particularly of Chinese descent.Read the coalition letter to Congress here: https://bit.ly/41dhn4C News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2023/12/10 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly town hall meeting2023/12/12 Community Briefing on Section 702 of FISA2023/12/13 APIAVote In-Person Event: Taste of Democracy2023/12/15 Webinar on Voices of AAPI Communities2023/12/17 Rep. Gene Wu 's Weekly town hall meetingVisit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details. 2. APAPA National Unity Awards Gala Among others, Rep. Grace Meng received the Community Champion Award and Professor Xiaoxing Xi was honored for his Unity & Resilience during the APAPA National Unity Awards Gala on December 9, 2023. 3. APIAVote In-person Event: Taste of Democracy WHAT: In-person Annual Event on Taste of Democracy WHEN: December 15, 2023, 1:00 pm ETWHERE: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, 6th Floor, Washington DCDESCRIPTION: An annual year-end event to celebrate APIAVote accomplishments in getting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders out to vote. The evening will also include a presentation of the Beacon of Democracy award. HOST: APIAVoteREGISTRATION: https://apia.vote/ToD2023 4. APIAVote Webinar: Unveiling Insights from New AAPI Data/AP-NORC Survey WHAT: Webinar on Voices of AAPI Communities: Unveiling Insights from New AAPI Data/AP-NORC Survey WHEN: December 15, 2023, 1:00 pm ET/10:00 am PTDESCRIPTION: Learn about AAPI views on voting rights, threats to democracy, and trust in political institutions. This poll is conducted by AAPI Data and AP-NORC.HOSTS: APIAVote, AAPI Data, Asian American Journalists Association REGISTRATION: https://apia.vote/dec23poll 5. California Teenager Who Passed Bar Exam at 17 is Now Practicing Attorney According to the Guardian on December 8, 2023, Peter Park , now 18, enrolled in the Northwestern California University School of Law at age 13 and graduated earlier this year, has become the youngest person to ever pass California’s bar exam and is now working as a practicing attorney. The Tulare county district attorney’s office announced that Peter Park, a Korean America, learned last month at 17 that he had passed the rigorous exam on his first attempt in what officials described as a “legal history making moment”. In July 2023, 51.5% of the 7,555 people who took the exam passed. Park has been a law clerk with the office since August after completing law school. Read the Guardian report: https://bit.ly/47Re3yz . Read also the Washington Post : https://wapo.st/47R9hRQ 6. Conference on Social Progress Since Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act 80 Years Ago (CRCEA80) The CRCEA80 Conference was held at the U.S. Capitol in Washington DC on December 5, 2023. More than 400 individuals attended the event. Speakers included US Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Reps Judy Chu and Ted Lieu . · Video summary of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ucBsUaVw9I (5:18) · Office of The U.S. Trade Representative: Remarks by Ambassador Katherine Tai at Event Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act · U. S. Department of State: 戴琪大使在《排华法案》废除 80 周年纪念活动上的讲话 Back View PDF December 11, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #403 OMB Rules Gut Grants/Collaboration; Yanping Chen Motions; Election Speech Backlash; + #403 OMB Rules Gut Grants/Collaboration; Yanping Chen Motions; Election Speech Backlash; + In This Issue #403 · OMB Rams Rule to Gut U.S. Science Grants and Collaboration Worldwide · Dr. Yanping Chen Seeks Escalating Fines Against Reporter Catherine Herridge · Trump's Election-Fraud Speech Sparks Fact-Checks and Fears of Anti-Asian Backlash · News and Activities for the Communities OMB Rams Rule to Gut U.S. Science Grants and Collaboration Worldwide A proposed White House rule that would restrict international research collaboration across nearly the entire federal government — not just the National Science Foundation (NSF) — has drawn a record-breaking public response and bipartisan congressional pushback, even as the Office of Management and Budget denied requests to extend its unusually short comment period. What the Rule Would Do On May 29, 2026, OMB proposed a sweeping rewrite of the federal government's "Uniform Guidance" — the rules governing how virtually all federal grants and cooperative agreements are awarded, managed, and terminated across agencies including NSF, NIH, DOE, and NASA. The proposal amends 456 sections of federal regulation, and its restrictions on international collaboration are just one part of a much broader overhaul that also expands political appointees' authority over merit-based grant decisions and creates new grounds to terminate active awards without cause. As reported in our newsletter Issue 402 , NSF's own China collaboration ban relies on restricted-entity lists specific to that agency; this OMB rule would go considerably further on the international-collaboration front, prohibiting federal award funds from being used for any collaboration with "countries of particular concern," designated foreign adversaries, or countries subject to national-security-related sanctions — with China as the most prominent country affected, alongside Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The rule would also block federal funds from going directly to foreign entities altogether, with exceptions only if expressly authorized in law or approved by a political appointee. According to reporting by AIP's newsletter , the practical reach of this rule is enormous. Because it applies to multilateral as well as bilateral collaborations, U.S. scientists could be forced out of major international projects simply because a Chinese researcher participates — even in large physics collaborations that routinely involve a thousand or more international partners. Cole Donovan of Stand Up for Science pointed to concrete examples: the rule could disrupt U.S. participation in the Large Hadron Collider (hosted by CERN in Switzerland) and fusion research partnerships, and the restrictions on "national security" countries could plausibly extend even to U.S. allies, citing precedent from semiconductor export restrictions previously placed on 17 European Union countries. The rule would also eliminate the "fundamental research exclusion" that has historically exempted much federally funded research from export-control regulations — a change Stand Up for Science warned "could expose a vast amount of government research to new restrictions far beyond the intent of the rule." Why the OMB Rule Could Bite Harder Than NSF's Policy Stanford physicist Peter Michelson offered a useful illustration of why the OMB rule poses a distinct and, in some ways, larger threat. Michelson noted that his own China-collaborative research, funded through NASA rather than NSF, is not directly affected by NSF's new restrictions — it complies with the Wolf Amendment because the collaboration is multilateral rather than bilateral, and all resulting publications and data are openly available to researchers worldwide. The OMB rule would change that calculus entirely. Because the proposal is not limited to bilateral collaboration in the way the Wolf Amendment is, it would bar continued collaboration with Chinese partners even in an open, multilateral, fully transparent research program of exactly this kind. Michelson emphasized this would not be an isolated problem — it would affect a wide range of international collaborators well beyond his own project — and argued it would be both unethical and scientifically damaging to exclude Chinese-based collaborators who have been exemplary contributors to shared research. This tension also extends to NSF's own operations. Michelson pointed out that the status of NSF's SECURE program, a research security initiative Congress mandated under the CHIPS and Science Act, remains unclear. NSF's new China collaboration policy will potentially conflict with this separate congressionally required program. Record Public Opposition, Bipartisan Pushback, and a Denied Extension The rule's 45-day comment period drew an extraordinary response: nearly 497,000 public comments on the 412-page proposal were submitted by the July 13 deadline, according to Science, with organizations like Stand Up for Science, the American Physical Society, and American Geophysical Union (AGU) mobilizing members to respond. OMB had only posted a fraction of the comments it received, making it difficult to independently assess the overall balance of support and opposition — though an earlier analysis by Tech Policy Press of more than 50,000 comments found 94% opposed the rule, with politicization of grant decisions cited as the top concern. AGU President Brandon Jones wrote that the rule would "restructure the foundational rules of U.S. science funding — with cascading impact for global collaborators — to serve political priorities rather than the public good." More than 300 science, research, and education organizations — including the Association of American Universities (AAU) — formally requested that OMB extend the comment period to August 27, arguing that a rule of this scope and complexity deserved more than 45 days of public input. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, separately asked OMB to extend the deadline by at least 90 days and to withdraw provisions that would "unduly burden scientific and biomedical research." All 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and 125 House Democrats signed separate letters opposing the rule. OMB denied every extension request. The comment period closed as originally scheduled on July 13. AAAS, in its formal comment, wrote: "We are disappointed that OMB denied requests for an extension to the comment period. The breadth and complexity of these significant proposed changes deserve all due diligence." AAAS ultimately urged OMB to withdraw the proposal in its entirety, as did the American Physical Society , which called the rule an unequivocal threat to "the system of peer review and international collaboration that has been central to making the U.S. a global leader in science." AAU's Formal Comment: A Rule That May Conflict With Existing Law AAU's formal comment to OMB goes further than most, arguing the rule does not just raise policy concerns but may be legally unenforceable as written. AAU asserts that Congress has not given OMB the power "to define which categories of scientific research may be federally funded; to restrict the international scholarly collaborations that Congress has elsewhere specifically authorized, or to make the receipt of federal research funding contingent on an institution's adherence to contested positions about civil rights law, scientific inquiry, and arbitrary and political decisions about what is in the national interest." AAU identifies several provisions it says "conflict with statutory responsibilities that Congress has assigned to federal agencies," rely on executive orders still tied up in litigation, or "exceed the authority delegated to OMB under federal law." Among AAU's most specific concerns: the rule's expanded authority to terminate active grant awards "for convenience" could run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which bars the executive branch from withholding or delaying appropriated funds without following specific statutory procedures. AAU argues a grants-management regulation "is not a substitute for those procedures," and calls on OMB to identify, for each mandatory statutory program the rule would touch, which legal obligation actually governs when the rule and existing statute conflict — something the current draft does not do. AAU also flags a direct conflict with civil rights law: institutions would need to simultaneously comply with the rule's restrictions on DEI-related activity and their existing obligations under Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 — statutes AAU says require exactly the kind of activity the new provision would prohibit. AAU notes the rule's repeated qualifier, "to the maximum extent permitted by law," does not resolve these tensions — it simply "delegates their resolution to individual agencies without guidance," leaving universities and researchers, in AAU's words, navigating "an irresolvable compliance dilemma." Notably, OMB's own proposed text exempts CHIPS and Science Act awards, along with several other categories, from the new discretionary termination and suspension authority specifically — so on that narrow point, direct conflict with CHIPS-funded programs may be avoided by design. But whether the rule's international collaboration restrictions (a separate provision, not covered by that exemption) conflict with CHIPS Act mandates like NSF's SECURE program — the very tension Michelson raised — remains an open, unaddressed question. Why This Matters for APA Community This rule intersects directly with several threads APA Justice has been tracking. Where NSF's own China collaboration ban relies on institution-specific restricted-entity lists, this OMB rule would impose a government-wide default barring collaboration with China and other "countries of concern" — with far fewer carve-outs and a far broader scope, potentially reaching even the kind of open, multilateral, fully transparent collaborations that current policy explicitly permits. Scientists of Chinese and other Asian descent, who make up a substantial share of U.S. research collaborations with Asian institutions, would likely bear a disproportionate burden of compliance uncertainty and lost opportunities, echoing concerns raised throughout this year's NSF, research security, and visa-related coverage. What's Next Under the Administrative Procedure Act, OMB is required to review and respond to substantive public comments before finalizing the rule, which is currently scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026 — the same effective date as NSF's separate China collaboration policy. Whether the volume and breadth of opposition, including AAU's statutory conflict arguments, leads OMB to substantially revise the rule before finalization remains to be seen. Given OMB's refusal to extend the comment period despite widespread requests, advocates who track this issue may want to watch closely for the final rule's publication, and for any legal challenges that may follow if the rule proceeds largely unchanged. The tension between NSF's new policy and its own congressionally mandated SECURE program, along with the open question of how open, multilateral research programs would fare under the OMB rule, will be part of the discussion at APA Justice's upcoming monthly meeting on August 3, 2026. Dr. Yanping Chen Seeks Escalating Fines Against Reporter Catherine Herridge Dr. Yanping Chen 陈燕平 has asked a federal court to sharply increase the financial penalty against journalist Catherine Herridge , who remains in contempt of court for refusing to identify the government official who allegedly leaked Chen's private records in violation of the Privacy Act — a case with echoes of the wrongful targeting Chen and others, including Wen Ho Lee 李文和 . Background Chen, a scientist and entrepreneur, has spent years pursuing a Privacy Act lawsuit after protected information about her was leaked to Herridge, then a Fox News reporter, and published without any accompanying evidence of wrongdoing. In August 2023, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ordered Herridge to reveal the identity of her source(s) so Chen could pursue her claim against the government official(s) responsible for the unlawful disclosure. When Herridge refused, the court held her in civil contempt in February 2024 and imposed an $800-per-day fine — but stayed the sanction to let Herridge pursue an appeal "to the hilt." That appeal has now run its full course, and Herridge has lost at every stage: · The D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the contempt order in 2025. · In May 2026, the full D.C. Circuit denied her petition for rehearing en banc — with not a single judge voting in her favor. · Her request to stay the mandate was denied by the D.C. Circuit in June 2026. · Her emergency application to the Supreme Court was denied on July 2, 2026, with only one justice indicating any interest in a stay. The D.C. Circuit's mandate took effect July 7, 2026, meaning the $800-per-day fine is now active. Herridge Says She Will Keep Defying the Order Despite losing at every level of the federal judiciary, Herridge has confirmed — through her attorneys and in a sworn declaration — that she will continue refusing to name her source(s). She has stated she intends to keep incurring the daily fine at least until the Supreme Court rules on a forthcoming petition for certiorari, a process her own filing acknowledges "will undoubtedly take months at a minimum." What Chen Is Now Asking the Court to Do In a new motion filed July 20, 2026, Chen's attorneys argue that the existing $800-per-day fine has plainly failed to coerce compliance, since Herridge has treated it as a cost of doing business rather than a meaningful deterrent. Notably, Chen's filing points out that Herridge never argued to the Supreme Court that the fine would be "financially ruinous" — and suggests this is because Fox News , Herridge's former employer, is likely bankrolling her legal defense, given the extensive resources behind her litigation (including representation by prominent Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement ). Chen is asking the court to: · Confirm and enforce the original $800-per-day fine retroactive to July 8, 2026; · Immediately increase the fine to $1,500 per day, escalating to $5,000 per day if Herridge does not comply within another week — a "graduated fine" structure modeled on a similar 2008 case, Hatfill v. Mukasey , involving another reporter held in contempt for protecting a source; and · Bar Herridge from accepting outside funding — from Fox News or anyone else — to pay the fines, arguing that allowing a third party to cover the cost would defeat the entire purpose of civil contempt, which is meant to personally coerce the individual's compliance. Chen's filing emphasizes that Herridge left Fox nearly seven years ago and testified that she never told anyone at Fox the identity of her source — meaning, Chen argues, that Herridge alone holds the information needed to resolve the case, and she alone should bear the financial consequences of withholding it. What's Next The district court will rule on Chen's escalation request. Herridge's certiorari petition remains pending at the Supreme Court. APA Justice will continue to monitor this case, which raises significant questions about accountability for the wrongful targeting of Chinese American scientists Trump's Election-Fraud Speech Sparks Fact-Checks and Fears of Anti-Asian Backlash President Trump 's prime-time address to the nation on July 16, 2026, alleging Chinese interference in the 2020 election, has drawn both a wave of fact-checking from major outlets and sharp warnings from Asian American organizations that the rhetoric could fuel renewed harassment against their communities — echoing patterns advocates say they've seen before. What Trump Said In a nearly 30-minute address from the East Room of the White House, Trump announced he had declassified documents he claims show that, starting in the 2020 election cycle, Beijing carried out "the largest compromise of election data in history," resulting in China's alleged acquisition of roughly 220 million U.S. voter files. Trump also cited a DHS report he called "stunning," alleging that state voter rolls and public records identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens registered to vote in federal elections — though, per FactCheck.org , neither Trump nor DHS claimed any of those individuals actually voted illegally. Trump provided no evidence of any votes or outcomes actually affected. He renewed his push for the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo ID at the polls, and directed the Justice Department to prosecute those he says were involved. What Fact-Checkers Found Coverage from PBS NewsHour , CBS News , FactCheck.org , and NPR found the speech's central claims do not hold up under scrutiny. A March 2021 National Intelligence Council assessment concluded with "high confidence" that Beijing did not attempt to influence the 2020 election's outcome, reasoning that Chinese officials did not see either a Trump or Biden win as advantageous enough to justify the risk of being caught. That assessment also found China did not interfere with election infrastructure or vote-counting systems — a distinct question from the newly surfaced allegations about voter registration data, and NPR reported that none of the newly released documents include evidence China actually used the voter data to influence the election's outcome. Every legal challenge and audit of the 2020 results, including hand recounts in Georgia and audits in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada, has confirmed the outcome, with no evidence of fraud significant enough to change the result. Democrats were quick to frame the speech as politically motivated. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump is "scared to death that he will lose" the 2026 midterms and "trying to change the subject," and China's foreign ministry called the allegations "entirely fabricated," per U.S. News . Asian American Communities Voice Alarm Several outlets and organizations reported concern that the speech's framing puts Asian Americans at risk of the same backlash seen during other periods of heightened U.S.-China tension. Notably, the South China Morning Post reported that Asian American groups condemned the speech even as "China hawks praised its message and tone" — underscoring how divided reaction to the speech has been along political lines. APIAVote , the nation's leading nonpartisan AAPI civic engagement organization, issued a statement from Founder and Executive Director Christine Chen warning that "rhetoric that casts China as the source of America's problems has fueled harassment and violence against Asian Americans," drawing a direct parallel to the pandemic-era spike in anti-Asian violence. The organization pointed to the same election-audit evidence cited by fact-checkers and called on leaders to unite the country with facts rather than scapegoating. The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) also criticized Trump's claims directly, arguing they were being used to advance his broader voting-restriction agenda, according to reporting citing Pew Research Center and FBI hate-crime data. CAPAC's statement follows a pattern established earlier this month, when the caucus separately condemned a Trump social media post referring to India and China as "hell-holes" and immigrants from those countries as "gangsters with laptops," which Rafu Shimpo reported CAPAC called part of "a disturbing pattern of the president legitimizing bigotry." The South China Morning Post spoke separately with Chinese immigrants who echoed this fear directly. Annie Guo , a Fujian-born mother of two now living in New York, said first-generation Chinese immigrants "are the easy targets because we still have many family ties in China," adding: "Whenever Trump doesn't do well in the election, he needs a scapegoat... It is like our original sin." Chinese-American advocacy groups quoted separately by SCMP said Trump's claims "threaten to fan an already tense domestic situation." Guo also noted a note of hope, pointing out that ABC , NBC , and CNN all declined to air the speech live on their primary channels as a sign that "many American people have common sense." In Ohio, local outlet Local12 reported that Leo Chan , who runs the Cincinnati-based Asia Chamber, warned that renewed U.S.-China political disputes could reignite the kind of suspicion and harassment against people of East Asian descent that peaked in the Tri-State area in 2023, when a shooting at an Asian-owned grocery store sent customers into a panic. Chan noted one silver lining: reaction to Trump's speech so far has been more measured and carefully worded than during the COVID-era backlash. This concern builds on a documented pattern: Stop AAPI Hate has reported that anti-Asian hate incidents surged in the aftermath of Trump's election, with anti-South Asian slurs increasing 75% and anti-East Asian slurs increasing 51% between November 2024 and January 2025 alone — the highest levels the organization had recorded since it began tracking incidents in 2022. The Bigger Picture Coverage from CNBC and Axios situates the speech within Trump's broader, years-long effort to relitigate his 2020 loss, alongside new efforts — including redistricting and added voting procedural requirements — to shape the 2026 midterms, where Republicans are defending narrow congressional majorities. The South China Morning Post noted the speech comes roughly four months before a high-stakes midterm election, amid an unpopular war and record-low presidential approval numbers — raising concern among some observers that Trump could invoke these claims to contest results if the midterms do not go his way. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/08/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/08/05 C100: The Impact of AI on Asian American Careers in Technology 2026/08/07-09 AASF: Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony 2026/08/26 C100: An Advice and Networking Event (Technology)Visit 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 . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF July 23, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

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 Legal Battles Current Status References and Links 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 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 Current Status Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 is scheduled for April 1, 2026. Back to Table of Contents References and Links 2026/02/25 NAPABA: NAPABA Leads Broad Coalition to Defend Birthright Citizenship in the U.S. Supreme Court 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 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

Newsletter - #317 Dr. Bryant Lin; Rep. Sylvester Turner; NIH Cuts Blocked Amidst Fear; DOGE Errors; + #317 Dr. Bryant Lin; Rep. Sylvester Turner; NIH Cuts Blocked Amidst Fear; DOGE Errors; + In This Issue #317 · NYT : Dr. Bryant Lin Got Cancer; He Didn't Quit · Remembering Congressman Sylvester Turner · Trump's Cuts to NIH Blocked Amidst Fear and Uncertainty · DOGE Errors and Questions of Transparency · News and Activities for the Communities NYT : Dr. Bryant Lin Got Cancer; He Didn't Quit According to New York Times on February 26, 2025, Dr. Bryant Lin 林百里 , a Stanford University professor and physician, was given a terminal Stage 4 lung cancer at age 50. A nonsmoker, he had spent much of his career researching lung cancer in Asian populations—only to find himself facing the very disease he had studied. Instead of withdrawing, he chose to teach a deeply personal course, “From Diagnosis to Dialogue: A Doctor’s Real-Time Battle With Cancer,” in which he shared his journey as both a doctor and a patient.The course filled immediately, with students even sitting on the floor to attend. Dr. Lin was moved by their enthusiasm, telling them, “It’s quite an honor for me, honestly. The fact that you would want to sign up for my class.”Throughout the 10-week course, he remained upbeat, guiding students through discussions on the psychology of illness, difficult medical conversations, and the role of spirituality in coping with disease. His wife, Christine Chan , spoke in a session on caregiving, describing her challenges and their family’s adjustments. Despite the severity of his condition, Dr. Lin’s humor shone through—when discussing new treatment options, he quipped, “Asking for a friend!”In one lecture, Dr. Lin shared a letter from a dying patient who had chosen to end dialysis, expressing gratitude for his care, “You treated me as you would treat your own father.”Dr. Lin explained that this moment stayed with him and inspired him to give back through his class. His goal was to help students see the humanity in medicine and, perhaps, inspire some to work in cancer care. By the final lecture, when he asked how many were considering that path, about a third raised their hands.His closing remarks echoed Lou Gehrig ’s famous farewell, “Yet today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth.” He expressed gratitude for his students, family, and colleagues, stating, “I may have had a tough break, but I have an awful lot to live for.”The class had an impact beyond medical training. Some students encouraged their families to get screened for lung cancer. One freshman, Gideon Witchel , took the course to better understand his mother’s past battle with breast cancer. Inspired by Dr. Lin, he finally talked to her about her illness, reading through letters she had written during treatment.Dr. Lin referred to his course as his “letter” to students, sharing his lessons while he still had time. Privately, he had written a personal letter for his sons to read after he was gone: “Whether I’m here or not, what I want you to know is that I love you. Of the many things I’ve done that have given my life meaning, being your daddy is the greatest of all.”His story became one of resilience, education, and love—an unfinished puzzle that others would continue piecing together.Read the New York Times article: https://bit.ly/43sYFZU Remembering Congressman Sylvester Turner According to multiple media reports, Congressman Sylvester Turner passed away suddenly on March 4, 2025. He was 70.Rep. Turner was elected to represent Texas' 18th Congressional District in the November 2024 election. The district includes much of inner-city Houston and the surrounding areas. Before him, the seat was held by late-Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee . Rep. Jackson Lee represented the district from 1995 until July 2024, when she died of pancreatic cancer. Prior to joining Congress this year, Rep. Turner was mayor of Houston and a member of the Texas House of Representatives.Both Reps. Turner and Jackson Lee participated actively in the opposition of the Texas alien land bill SB147 in 2023, taking to the streets and marching with the Asian American communities. According to Houston Public Media on January 23, 2023, then-Houston-Mayor Turner said, "Senate Bill 147 is just down right wrong. It is more divisive than anything else. Houston, the most diverse city in the United States, stands as one to say that we all should stand against 147." Trump's Cuts to NIH Blocked Amidst Fear and Uncertainty As of March 6, 2025, the number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump 's executive actions reported by the Just Security Litigation Tracker has grown to 104.According to AP News , New York Times , STAT , and multiple media reports, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from slashing National Institutes of Health (NIH) payments for research indirect cost, a decision that suggests plaintiffs seeking to overturn the sweeping policy change are likely to eventually succeed. “Absent a nationwide injunction, institutions across the country will be forced to operate with the same uncertainty, resulting in the types of irreparable harm that a preliminary injunction is meant to prevent,” she wrote.Judge Kelley made the ruling in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health (1:25-cv-10338) which was filed in the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case combined three lawsuits brought by coalitions of Democratic states, universities, and medical associations. Dr. David J. Skorton of the Association of American Medical Colleges, one of the plaintiffs, applauded the ruling. “These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives,” he wrote in a statement, saying the NIH-funded research “benefits every person and community in America.”According to the Washington Post on March 6, 2025, the Trump administration’s orders have created more turmoil and damage at the NIH than was previously known. On January 24, 2025, the Trump administration installed Matthew Memoli , a longtime NIH influenza researcher and physician who was not part of the senior leadership ranks, as acting director, bypassing Lawrence Tabak , principal deputy director of NIH who served as acting director for two years under the Biden administration. That initial shock marked the beginning of six weeks of turmoil for NIH's scientific staff. In just that short period, the Trump administration reshaped NIH's leadership, stalled its core mission of identifying cutting-edge research to fund, and effectively silenced personnel at the world's largest biomedical research sponsor—a $48 billion operation supporting roughly 300,000 external scientists. The Washington Post provides a detailed week-by-week summary of the events.Even in a climate of fear, NIH employees say they want to protect their institution. They worry this winter of disruption may be causing lasting damage to the way science is conducted in the United States. “The whole thing could just disappear,” said Phil Murphy , senior investigator and chief of the laboratory of molecular immunology at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). “The biomedical research enterprise in the United States depends largely on NIH dollars. You take the dollars away, the labs go away, and you lose the next generation of scientists.” Latest Developments with Federal Employees According to AP News on March 5, 2025, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 180 employees who were laid off two weeks ago can come back to work. An email was reportedly sent with the subject line, “Read this e-mail immediately.” It said that “after further review and consideration,” a February 15 termination notice has been rescinded and the employee was cleared to return to work on Wednesday. “You should return to duty under your previous work schedule,” it said. “We apologize for any disruption that this may have caused.”According to NPR on March 5, 2025, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to temporarily reinstate close to 6,000 employees fired since February 13, finding reasonable grounds to believe the agency acted illegally in terminating them. MSPB issued a stay , ordering the USDA to return the fired workers to their jobs for 45 days while an investigation continues. The MSPB acts as an internal court to consider federal employees' complaints against the government. According to MSPB , the weekly number of cases it receives has spiked since February, reaching 2,178 in the most recent week. According to Federal News Network on March 4, 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has just rehired about half of the employees it fired two weeks ago. The reversal comes after a federal judge ruled in American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States Office of Personnel Management (3:25-cv-01780) that the Trump administration's directives telling agencies to fire their probationary employees were illegal. The reinstated workers will receive backpay and will not see a break in service. While 84 employees will be going back to work, the other 86 fired workers will still be out of their jobs. NSF said that is because they were intermittent employees and not full-time staff members. DOGE Errors and Its Lack of Transparency According to New York Times on March 3, 2025, for the second time in a week, Elon Musk’s "Department Government Efficiency" updated its “wall of receipts” to remove mistakes that inflated its success, erasing over $4 billion in claimed savings. It deleted or altered more than 1,000 contracts—40% of last week's listings. Total reported savings has dropped from $16 billion to under $9 billion since February 19.Experts have flagged numerous errors, including miscalculations, duplicate entries, and contracts that ended long ago. According to Inside Higher Ed on March 5, 2025, education scholars say the administration’s rash of cuts and lack of quality transparency will have a “devastating effect” on public policy and student outcomes for years to come.On February 18, 2025, President Trump ordered federal agencies to disclose all terminated programs, contracts, and grants to enhance transparency. However, the Department of Education has not provided details on cuts totaling $1.9 billion, despite requests. Critics argue the administration is failing to be truly transparent, with experts warning that these cuts will significantly impact research, policymaking, and education outcomes.“The cuts that happened recently are going to have far-reaching impacts, and those impacts could really be long term unless some rapid action is taken,” said Mamie Voight , president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. “To eliminate data, evidence and research is working in opposition to efficiency,” she said.In a recent analysis, titled “ Running Down DOGE’s Department of Education Receipts ,” Nat Malkus , deputy director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, compared a leaked list of the 89 terminated Institute of Education Sciences contracts, along with detailed data from USASpending.gov * , to those DOGE had posted on its website. He said he found major inconsistencies in how savings were calculated. Antoinette Flores , director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, conducted similar research and also found that the DOGE data does not add up and exaggerates the savings. “It’s absolutely hypocrisy,” she said. “It feels like we’re all being gaslit. I don’t know why they are saying they want to be transparent without being transparent.” * What is USASpending.gov ? USASpending.gov is the official U.S. government website that tracks federal spending. It provides public access to data on how taxpayer dollars are allocated, including details on federal contracts, grants, loans, and other financial assistance. The site is managed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and aims to enhance transparency by allowing users to search and analyze government expenditures across agencies, recipients, and specific programs.USASpending.gov was created as part of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006. The website was launched in 2007. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2025/03/12 MSU Webinar on China Initiative2025/03/16 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/03/26 Policing White Supremacy: The Enemy Within2025/03/30 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/04/13 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. 03/12 MSU Webinar: The China Initiative On March 12, 2025, please join the webinar hosted by Michigan State University's Asian Pacific American Studies Program for an insightful discussion of the past and present of the China Initiative, a Trump administration program that targeted Asian American scholars and researchers for investigation and prosecution. Dr. Lok Siu of UC Berkeley and Dr. Jeremy Wu of APA Justice will speak at the event moderated by Dr. Kent Weber of Michigan State University.Register to attend: https://bit.ly/4hVaITO 3. USCET 2025 Summer Internship Opens The U.S.-China Education Trust (USCET) is accepting applications from undergraduate juniors, seniors, and graduate students passionate about U.S.-China relations. This hybrid, part-time internship at a nonprofit dedicated to cross-cultural dialogue offers hands-on experience and the opportunity to earn a stipend or academic credit. Read the job description and follow application steps here: https://bit.ly/3Nz4Tyi . Application Deadline: March 28, 2025, at 11:59 PM ET. 4. Erratum In APA Justice Newsletter Issue #316 , Jeremy Berg was incorrectly identified as a former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He previously served as the director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, a division of NIH. We regret the error. Back View PDF March 7, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

4. Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy - How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative” 2020-2022 China Initiative Wednesday, April 28, 2021 The recent acts of violence and the rise in Anti-Asian hate, along with the government’s heightened scrutiny and racial profiling of scientists and researchers of Asian and Chinese descent, particularly through the Department of Justice’s “China Initiative,” have caused immeasurable harm to the Asian American community, leaving lives in shambles and eroding the health of our democracy. This comprehensive webinar takes a deeper dive into how we can empower impacted persons and the broader Asian American and immigrant community to take action to protect their civil rights and advocate for policy reform. Policy makers, civil rights organizations, and the academic community will share their insights on topics including policy and advocacy engagement, access to available legal resources, and building narratives to lift up the voices of impacted people and combat xenophobia. 20210428 Webinar4ChinaInitative1.png 20210428 Webinar4ChinaInitative2.png Previous Item Next Item