Search this site

Newsletter - #151 10/03 Meeting Summary; AAUP as a Resource; AASF Webinar; Symposium; Asian Americans #151 10/03 Meeting Summary; AAUP as a Resource; AASF Webinar; Symposium; Asian Americans Back View PDF October 24, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #374 2/2 Meeting; Equity Pulse; "One Year of Trump"; Angwang Lawsuit; University Rankings+ #374 2/2 Meeting; Equity Pulse; "One Year of Trump"; Angwang Lawsuit; University Rankings+ In This Issue #374 · 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · Frank Wu Leads Off Equity Pulse Webinar Series · Science : One Year of Trump · Former NYPD Officer Angwang Files Lawsuit · NYT : Chinese Universities Surge; U.S. Slips · News and Activities for the Communities 2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2026, starting at 1:55 pm ET. Rep. Judy Chu , Chair Emerita of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, will deliver a New Year of the Fire Horse message and a review of 2025 via video, in addition to updates from: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are honored by and welcome the following confirmed distinguished speakers: · Frank Wu , President, Queen’s College, City University of New York · Rosie Levine , Executive Director, US-China Education Trust · Elizabeth Rao and Attorney Tom Geoghegan , Despres, Schwartz, & Geoghegan, Ltd. The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the Co-Organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . ***** The deadline for signing the coalition letter by faculty members to support justice & honor the memory of Dr. Jane Ying Wu is January 29, 2026, 12 pm ET. Effective January 1, 2026, Dr. Steven Pei has stepped down from his role as Co-Organizer of APA Justice. As a result, Dr. Pei no longer represents APA Justice. Please direct all APA Justice matters to Jeremy Wu and Vincent Wang, Co-Organizers. We thank Dr. Pei for his dedicated service over the past few years and wish him continued success in the future. Frank Wu Leads Off Equity Pulse Webinar Series The Equity Pulse is a monthly webinar series hosted by the Committee of 100 that translates the State of Chinese Americans Survey insights into policy-relevant public education. The series focuses on policy issues that disproportionately affect the Chinese American community, emphasizing the chilling effect, indirect consequences of policies framed as race-neutral or national security-driven that produce secondary discrimination and contribute to fear, withdrawal, and diminished belonging. The first session on February 3, 2026, features Frank Wu 吴华扬 , President of Queens College, City University of New York, and Committee of 100 member. He will provide historical context on how similar policy frameworks have produced unequal outcomes over time and how these patterns reemerge under new rationales. Register to attend: https://bit.ly/45THbX2 . Science : One Year of Trump On January 22, 2026, Science published a four-part special section examining the effects of Donald Trump ’s first year back in the White House on the U.S. research enterprise. Rather than isolated policy shifts, the reporting describes a broad systemic disruption driven by overlapping political, fiscal, and ideological forces whose full consequences are still unfolding. 1. Damage Assessment One year into Trump’s second term, U.S. science has experienced what many observers characterize as a structural shock. Although Trump’s campaign priorities—shrinking government, expanding executive authority, restricting immigration, and confronting elite universities—did not explicitly target science, their convergence has produced sweeping effects: billions of dollars in frozen or canceled grants, prolonged review delays, elimination of climate- and DEI-related programs, mass departures of federal staff, agency restructuring, and reduced access to federal data. Former NSF director Neal Lane summarized the moment bluntly: “It’s an attack on anything that doesn’t conform to Trump’s political agenda.” Analysts describe three overlapping drivers. “Muskism,” associated with Elon Musk ’s short-lived Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), relied on aggressive and often legally questionable tactics to slash staffing and terminate grants, including at agencies such as USAID. Many actions were later reversed by courts, and even Musk acknowledged limited success. As a result, DOGE is widely viewed as disruptive but unlikely to leave a lasting institutional imprint. “Voughtism,” by contrast, is seen as far more consequential. Rooted in Project 2025 and advanced by OMB Director Russell Vought , it aims to shrink federal capacity while consolidating power in the executive branch. The central test is spending authority. Trump’s assertion of the right to impound congressionally appropriated funds—partly upheld by a 2025 Supreme Court ruling allowing him to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid—has alarmed research leaders. Former NIH director Elias Zerhouni warned that if impoundment becomes routine, “all bets are off.” Universities are already scaling back hiring, facilities, and graduate programs in response to fiscal uncertainty. “Trumpism,” the broadest and most unpredictable force, encompasses unilateral executive actions affecting immigration, data access, DEI programs, and political oversight of grantmaking. While many actions rely on executive orders and could be reversed, some changes may endure. DEI infrastructure has largely disappeared from universities, and Trump’s August 2025 order expanding political review of grant awards may set a lasting precedent. His May 2025 “gold standard science” order further polarized the community, with critics warning it undermines trust and supporters arguing it corrects perceived favoritism. Whether these changes prove transient or transformative will depend on institutional resilience, judicial constraints, and whether policymakers articulate a coherent long-term strategy—something critics say remains absent. 2. Pressure on the Pipeline The disruption has fallen most heavily on the scientific workforce pipeline, particularly early-career researchers. While senior scientists remain relatively insulated, graduate students, postdocs, and junior faculty face canceled grants, funding uncertainty, the rollback of DEI programs, and a more restrictive climate for international scholars. Some are leaving U.S. science altogether. As one chemist told Science, “What we’re more seeing is the toll of the uncertainty.” Grant freezes, proposed 2026 budget cuts of roughly 40% at NIH and more than 50% at NSF, and efforts to cap indirect cost reimbursements have made long-term planning difficult for universities—even where courts or Congress have intervened. Institutions are pulling back on faculty hiring and graduate admissions rather than risk multi-year commitments they may not be able to sustain. “You have the momentum going, and then the momentum is lost,” said Néstor Carballeira of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras. Early data suggest the pipeline is already tightening. Overall graduate enrollment in fall 2025 was flat, but computer science enrollment fell 14%, international graduate enrollment dropped 6%, and faculty hiring declined sharply in fields such as chemistry and biomedical engineering. Cuts to DEI-focused programs and visa restrictions further threaten the future workforce. While some leaders argue this moment could prompt reforms in training for nonacademic careers, many fear the long-term damage to U.S. scientific capacity will only become visible years from now. 3. Talking Back Trump’s second term has also forced a fundamental rethink of science advocacy. Institutions long reliant on quiet, bipartisan engagement suddenly faced grant terminations, agency upheaval, and threats to university funding. That shift became unmistakable in February 2025, when the Association of American Universities sued the federal government for the first time in its 125-year history, challenging proposed caps on research overhead payments as unlawful and devastating. Responses diverged. Some universities and societies opted for restraint, fearing retaliation. Others concluded silence was riskier and turned to litigation, grassroots campaigns, advertising, and political donations. Courts quickly became a key battleground, with early rulings blocking indirect-cost caps and releasing billions in frozen funds—reinforcing lawsuits as an effective defense. Congressional advocacy intensified as well, with science groups reframing their case around national security, economic competitiveness, and public health. New coalitions adopted explicitly “America-first” messaging and funded political action committees to support sympathetic lawmakers. While these efforts blunted some proposed cuts, observers noted a sobering recalibration: outcomes once seen as losses were now celebrated simply for preserving the status quo. More overtly political strategies also emerged. Graduate student Colette Delawalla founded Stand Up for Science, embracing protests and partisan messaging to confront Trump’s agenda directly. Admirers praise its urgency; critics warn it risks eroding science’s historically bipartisan support. Still, one conclusion is widely shared: quiet diplomacy alone is no longer sufficient. The advocacy landscape has permanently changed. 4. What’s Next With three years remaining in Trump’s second term, uncertainty continues to hang over U.S. science. Key questions include whether the administration will attempt further impoundment of congressionally approved funds and whether courts will continue to block unilateral actions affecting grants and overhead payments. Universities remain under pressure from funding disputes, visa restrictions, and political scrutiny, while public health policy—particularly around vaccines and research on marginalized populations—has emerged as a growing flashpoint. Meanwhile, plans to shrink the federal scientific workforce and revise regulations governing environmental protection, pathogen research, international collaboration, and open-access publishing could reshape the research landscape for years to come. The Science report makes clear that the defining question is no longer whether damage has occurred, but whether U.S. science can adapt quickly enough to preserve its capacity, independence, and global leadership. Read the Science report: https://bit.ly/49Cru95 Former NYPD Officer Angwang Files Lawsuit According to the New York Times on January 20, 2026, Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 , a former New York City police officer and U.S. Marine Corps veteran, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging retaliation, discrimination, and malicious prosecution after being fired by the New York Police Department (NYPD) even though federal prosecutors dropped espionage-related charges against him. Prosecutors quietly dismissed the case identified as part of the now-defunct “China Initiative” in January 2023 after reassessing evidence, but the NYPD proceeded with an internal investigation based on the now-dismissed charges and terminated Angwang in January 2024 following his absence from a mandatory disciplinary hearing. Angwang, an ethnic Tibetan granted political asylum after immigrating to the United States as a teenager, joined the NYPD in 2016 after serving honorably in the Marines, including a deployment to Afghanistan. He was arrested in 2020 on allegations that he acted as an undeclared agent of the Chinese government and spent more than five months detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Prosecutors cited his communications with Chinese consular officials, but Angwang maintains these contacts were routine and necessary for visa-related matters common among Tibetans and other Chinese-born immigrants. In his lawsuit and public statements, Angwang argues that the investigation and his termination were driven by racial animus and retaliation for speaking out against what he calls an unfounded prosecution. He described the ordeal as a misuse of prosecutorial power that derailed his career and stigmatized him as disloyal to a country he says he loves and has served. The NYPD declined to comment on the lawsuit. CourtListener: Angwang v. United States Of America (1:26-cv-00478) Read more about the story of Angwang at the APA Justice website. NYT: Chinese Universities Surge; U.S. Slips According to the New York Times on January 15, 2026, there is a significant shift in global university rankings, with Chinese institutions surging ahead in research output while American universities, including prestigious ones like Harvard, are experiencing a relative decline. Harvard, which once dominated global rankings, has dropped to third place in the Leiden Rankings, a system that evaluates universities based on academic publications and citations. Zhejiang University in China now occupies the top spot, with seven other Chinese universities also ranking in the top 10. This marks a stark contrast to the early 2000s when seven American universities were among the top 10, and only one Chinese university made it into the top 25. Despite producing more research than ever before, American universities are being outpaced by the rapid growth in research output from Chinese institutions. The article attributes this trend to several factors, including China's substantial investment in research and education, as well as its efforts to attract international researchers and students. Chinese universities have focused on publishing in English-language journals, which are more widely read and cited globally, further boosting their rankings. In contrast, American universities are facing challenges such as reduced federal research funding, travel bans, and anti-immigration policies under the Trump administration. These measures have led to a decline in international student enrollment and could potentially harm the prestige and future rankings of U.S. institutions. While Harvard remains at the top of some rankings, such as those for highly-cited scientific publications, the broader trend suggests a shift in global academic dominance. Despite the decline in research-focused rankings, American universities still perform well in broader ranking systems that consider factors like reputation, finances, and Nobel Prize winners among faculty. For example, Harvard and other U.S. schools continue to hold top spots in rankings by Times Higher Education and the University Ranking by Academic Performance. However, the article warns that the erosion of American supremacy in higher education could have long-term consequences for the nation’s global influence. As China continues to invest heavily in research and education, its universities are becoming increasingly competitive, signaling a new era in the global academic landscape. Read the New York Times report: https://nyti.ms/4pAv4Ff News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/01/28 Elliot L. Richardson Prize for Exceptional Public Service 2026/01/29-30 The Jimmy Carter Forum on U.S.-China Relations2026/02/02 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/02/03 The Equity Pulse with Frank Wu 2026/02/11 Conversations, Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes: BD Wong Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. January 28, 2026: Gary Locke to be Honored Elliot L. Richardson Prize for Excellence in Public Service Wednesday, January 28 Reception 6:00 p.m. Awards 7:00-9:00 p.m. Ronald Reagan International Trade Building 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 Please join us in celebrating this year’s honorees for their extraordinary public service—an embodiment of the values championed by Elliot Richardson. A beacon of integrity and principled leadership, Richardson was a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and served in four Cabinet-level roles, including Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; Secretary of Defense; Attorney General; and Secretary of Commerce. 3. AASF: AIX Summit East 2026 Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) will AIX Summit East 2026 in New York City on April 17, 2026. This one-day AASF gathering in New York City will provide an exciting and energizing forum to exchange ideas, build partnerships, and define pathways for impact over the next five, ten, and fifty years. The inaugural AASF AIX Summit East 2026 convenes leaders across academia, industry, government, and the next generation of AI innovators to shape how artificial intelligence will transform—and be transformed by—science, engineering, health, education, and finance. At a moment of profound technological and societal change, the Summit centers collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and generations, bringing together established visionaries and rising stars to move the conversation from what AI can generate to what it can build for the nation. High school, undergraduate, and graduate students are invited to submit posters showcasing their research and applied work in artificial intelligence and related fields. Selected students will present their project at the summit, compete for poster awards, benefit from small-group mentoring, and receive highly discounted conference registration. For more information, visit https://bit.ly/4k04TXl 4. In Memoriam: Norman Zalkind Norman Stanley Zalkind , age 87, passed away on December 20, 2025. He was a renowned Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer and founding partner of the law firm Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. Norman was a long time supporter of the work of APA Justice. In a touching tribute, Attorney Harvey Silvergate said, "Norman was an extraordinary criminal defense lawyer, particularly with juries. He could, as the saying goes, sell refrigerators to Eskimos.” # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF January 26, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #246 4/8 Monthly Meeting; JASON Report; Voting Gap; China Engagement; Delaware HB 322; More #246 4/8 Monthly Meeting; JASON Report; Voting Gap; China Engagement; Delaware HB 322; More In This Issue #246 · 2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · JASON Report on Safeguarding the Research Enterprise · Voter Registration Gap for Latinos and Asian Americans · Opinion: US Engagement Without Provocation of China · Delaware House Bill 322 Moves Forward · News and Activities for the Communities 2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, April 8, 2024, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates by Nisha Ramachandran , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC); Joanna YangQing Derman , Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC; and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), confirmed speakers are: · Robert Underwood, Commissioner, President's Advisory Commission on AA and NHPI; Former Chair of CAPAC; Former President of University of Guam · Yvonne Lee, Commissioner, USDA Equity Commission; Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights · Chenglong Li, Zhong-Ren Peng , and Jiangeng Xue , Officers of Florida Chinese Faculty Association and Professors of University of Florida · David Inoue, Executive Director, Japanese American Citizens League · Cindy Tsai, Interim President and Executive Director, Committee of 100 The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎, Vincent Wang 王文奎, and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . JASON Report on Safeguarding the Research Enterprise On March 21, 2024, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) released a new report by JASON, an independent science advisory group, titled " Safeguarding the Research Enterprise. " This report builds upon the 2019 Fundamental Research Security report. In this study, JASON was tasked to comment on specific steps NSF might take to identify sensitive areas of research and describe processes to address security in those areas. The report presents eight key findings and six recommendations for NSF's consideration. It emphasizes the importance of international collaboration in research while acknowledging various risks and the necessity to distinguish between sensitive and nonsensitive research.JASON recommendations highlight the importance of fostering a culture of research security awareness within the scientific community by providing substantive information to researchers about real risks, making resources available and encouraging continuous engagement with researchers and their institutions about the efficacy of research risk mitigation and control efforts. NSF is currently reviewing the findings and considering the implementation of recommendations as it develops new policy review processes for national security concerns. These policies are slated to be effective by the May 24, 2024, deadline set forth in the "CHIPS & Science Act of 2022."On March 31, 2024, Axios offered insights on the JASON report, suggesting caution in adding controls over fundamental science research. Many scientists emphasize the importance of an open research environment, essential for testing and exchanging results and hypotheses. Others argue that international collaborations offer insights into other countries' capabilities and help shape global science and tech standards. JASON highlights changes in fundamental research across physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science, with increasing scientific collaborations between countries. There is growing science and tech competition globally as nations invest in education and research infrastructure. The transition from basic science to practical technology is faster now, with advancements quickly commercialized. Many defense-related scientific breakthroughs are coming from civilian sectors and private companies, posing dual-use challenges. The rise of China in the science world order prompts re-evaluation of sensitive research handling.JASON advises NSF against broadly designating scientific fields as sensitive but recommends assessing project sensitivity case by case. It also cautions against expanding export controls to include fundamental research areas, warning of increased research costs, talent pipeline reduction, and hindrance to broader U.S. economic and national security interests.The project-by-project approach is "reasonable," says Tobin Smith , vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, where the rubber hits the road for these policies.NSF is launching a Research on Research Security (RORS) program to delve into research security matters from an academic viewpoint. Currently, there is limited comprehensive data available on the issue, despite some information being published by the agency and others. NSF is working on a machine learning tool to scrutinize grants, papers, and related documents. This tool aims to uncover undisclosed affiliations, professional roles, or funding sources that could pose conflicts of commitment or interest. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is currently developing its Research Security Program Standard Requirement . A 2021 national security memorandum directed OSTP to establish research security standards for universities and other research institutions.Read the NSF announcement: https://bit.ly/4ajpFvv . Read the JASON report: https://bit.ly/3TGukke . Read the Axios report: https://bit.ly/3VBlve2 Voter Registration Gap for Latinos and Asian Americans According to NPR on April 2, 2024, in a pivotal election year, U.S. democracy continues to face a persistent challenge among the country's electorate — gaps in voter registration rates between white eligible voters and eligible voters of color. "For years, the shares of Black, Asian and Latino citizens age 18 or older signed up to cast ballots have trailed behind that of white adult citizens, according to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey."Based on national estimates from the last two federal election years, the disparity in registration rates between white and Asian eligible voters is around nine percentage points. Between white and Latino eligible voters, the gap is about 13 percentage points."Long-standing barriers to voter registration have made it difficult to close these gaps, and dedicated investment is needed to ensure fuller participation in elections and a healthier democracy, many researchers and advocates say," NPR said. The barriers and challenges include: · For some, economic needs overshadow political participation · Asian Americans and Latinos are less likely to be contacted by campaigns · Voting restrictions can disproportionately affect people of color · "...without our voice, nothing's going to be done" Read the NPR report: https://n.pr/49rvzcK Opinion: US Engagement Without Provocation of China According to the East Asia Forum on March 31, 2024, Johns Hopkins University Professor David Lampton and Stanford University Professor Thomas Fingar opined that the United States should seek engagement without provocation of China."China is in a phase of its foreign and domestic policy that emphasises an old bundle of policies attaching primacy to regime and national security at the cost of economic growth. At some point, China will move toward its other historical foreign policy bundle emphasising economic growth and more openness. The United States should hold open the door to the second policy package for the indefinite future, while deterring Beijing's most dangerous behaviour in its current policy incarnation. Washington needs to restore credibility to its One China Policy and lower the rhetorical temperature, a formidable challenge in the midst of a presidential election in the United States and when there is a high level of insecurity in Beijing," the professors said.Read the East Asia Forum essay: https://bit.ly/4cFddYG How Chinese Students Experience America In a comprehensive New Yorker report on April 1, 2024, Staff Writer Peter Hessler recounts his teaching experience at Sichuan University in China and tracks a class of students who have come to the United States through the Sichuan University–Pittsburgh Institute (SCUPI). All SCUPI classes were in English, and after two or three years at Sichuan University students could transfer to the University of Pittsburgh or another foreign institution. SCUPI was one of many programs and exchanges designed to direct more Chinese students to the U.S. In the 2019-20 academic year, Chinese enrollment at American institutions reached an all-time high of 372,532. A generation earlier, the vast majority of Chinese students at American universities had stayed in the country, but the pattern changed dramatically with China’s new prosperity. In 2022, the Chinese Ministry of Education reported that, in the past decade, more than eighty per cent of Chinese students returned after completing their studies abroad.In the span of a single generation, China’s enrollment rate of college-age citizens had risen from eight per cent to 51.6 per cent by 2019. Following a number of his students from China to the United States, Hessler tells a story of how COVID, guns, anti-Asian violence, and diplomatic relations have complicated the ambitions of the 300,000+ college students who come to the U.S. each year. Read the New Yorker article or listen to it at https://bit.ly/3vt00l3 (51:04). Delaware House Bill 322 Moves Forward According to Coastal-TV on April2, 2024, an act to amend title 29 of Delaware code in regard to a commission on Asian and Pacific Islander heritage and culture was recently voted on with one person in favor of the bill and four others agreeing to move it forward but with further consideration needed. House Bill 322 is sponsored by William Bush of District 29. It would bring representation of the AAPI community. The Delaware Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Heritage and Culture would do the following: 1. Provide the Governor, members of the General Assembly, and policymakers with recommendations to promote the welfare and interests of all people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who reside in this State 2. Establish, maintain and develop cultural ties between Asian and Pacific Islanders and Asian-Americans and Pacific Islander-Americans 3. Foster a special and compelling interest in the historical and cultural backgrounds of people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent, as well as in the economic, political, social and artistic life of the nations and territories involved 4. Help study, establish, or promote programs or events that will provide appropriate awareness of the culture, history, heritage, and language of people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent 5. Provide a platform for the promotion of the cultural and historical heritage of any people of Asian and Pacific Islander descent Asian American advocate and student at the University of Delaware's Biden School of Public Policy, Devin Jiang , said, "We can’t have a democracy when certain groups don’t have seats at the decision-making table. And for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, we lack representation in all three branches of government in Delaware, other states across the country, and the federal government." said Jiang, "We don’t have seats in many rooms. This changes in Delaware: if passed and signed into law, HB 322 will bring about more political representation for AAPIs."Read the Coastal-TV report: https://bit.ly/3PLJXWi Blinken appoints chief diversity and inclusion officer According to NBC News on April 2, 2024, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has appointed a new chief diversity and inclusion officer at the State Department ten months after the role became vacant. The position does not require Senate confirmation. Zakiya Carr Johnson will be tasked with building a workforce that “reflects America,” Blinken said in a statement. Although most at the State Department supported Blinken’s efforts to elevate issues of diversity and inclusion, a number also said that they would have liked the opportunity to share their thoughts ahead of Carr Johnson’s appointment. Chief among the challenges facing Carr Johnson will be “a massive retention issue at the department,” said Merry Walker , president of the Asian American Foreign Affairs Association. “Especially at the mid-levels.” Representatives from other State Department employee organizations expressed similar concerns about keeping staff on board. Read the NBC News report: https://nbcnews.to/3U1kn1X News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/04/07 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/04/08 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/04/09 China Town Hall (2-part program)2024/04/17 Racially Profiled for Being A Scientist. A Discussion of the US DOJ's China Initiative2024/04/18 Corky Lee's Asian America: Fifty Years of Photographic Justice 2024/04/19 Appeals Court Hearing on Florida SB 2642024/04/19 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and GalaVisit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details. Back View PDF April 4, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #172 Alien Land Laws/Related Bills; Erika Moritsugu; US Academic Pre-eminence; John Liu; + #172 Alien Land Laws/Related Bills; Erika Moritsugu; US Academic Pre-eminence; John Liu; + In This Issue #172 Opposition to Alien Land Laws and Related Bills New York Times Features Erika Moritsugu Will China End U.S. Academic Pre-Eminence? NYS Senator John Liu and NYPD Officer Baimadajie Angwang News and Activities for the Communities Opposition to Alien Land Laws and Related Bills According to the San Francisco Standard on March 20, 2023, a committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (SFBOS) has voted to condemn Texas bill SB 147, which is authored by Texas Republican state Senator Lois Kolkhorst and seeks to prohibit citizens and government entities from four countries from buying real estate in Texas over alleged national security concerns.Because the bill targets certain immigrants based on their countries of origin, it has sparked backlash from Chinese American and other immigrant communities nationwide, renewing a vigorous debate on anti-Asian racism and xenophobia .At a meeting in San Francisco City Hall on March 20, 2023, the board’s Land Use and Transportation Committee voted unanimously to pass the resolution . Leading the effort was Supervisor Connie Chan , a Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong. “This bill is dangerous and racist,” Chan said. “We must stand up for our community, not just here where we live, but also all across the nation.” She went on to compare the law with California's own Alien land laws during the early 20th century, which restricted Asian immigrants from property ownership.Representatives from Chinese for Affirmative Action, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and other activist groups spoke at the board meeting in support of the resolution. APA Justice and other organizations submitted letters of support to the SFBOS. If passed by the full board, San Francisco will send an official copy of the resolution to leaders in both Texas and California. After strong criticism, Kolkhorst, the Texas state senator, had already changed her bill by exempting permanent residents (green card holders) from the ban. Opponents of the Texas resolution still think it’s still unacceptable, even with the softened tone. Julie Tang , a retired San Francisco judge and a Chinese immigrant, said the amended bill doesn’t change its character.She said that classifying the group of Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and Iranians from buying properties is barring them from enjoying the equal rights that other Americans have, regardless of their citizenship.“That itself is discrimination,” Tang said. “And that in itself is illegal and unconstitutional.”Read the San Francisco Standard report: http://bit.ly/3Z6hexf Texas House Bill No. 4736. According to Yahoo News on March 15, 2023, a Texas State Republican representative introduced a bill to ban undocumented immigrants, along with citizens from China and North Korea, from being admitted to public colleges and universities in Texas. The bill also seeks to ban undocumented students from Iran and Russia. Read the Yahoo News report: https://yhoo.it/3TtnUnX Texas House Bill 2206. According to Texas Legislature Online, a Texas State Republican representative introduced a bill to prohibit the use of certain social media platforms developed or provided by China, Iran, North Korea or Russia. The bill was referred to the Texas House State Affairs Committee on March 9 and is scheduled to have a public hearing on March 22. Read the Texas Legislature Online: https://bit.ly/3n6Msan Texas House Bill 4736. According to Texas Legislature Online, a Texas State Republican representative introduced a bill to forbid education institutions to admit citizens of China, Iran, North Korea or Russia on March 10, 2023. Read the Texas Legislature Online: https://bit.ly/42qiqyn New York Times Features Erika Moritsugu On March 13, 2023, New York Times published a report titled "At White House, Asian American Liaison Juggles Celebrations and Crises," featuring Erika Moritsugu , the first White House A.A.P.I. liaison in charge of both promoting the community’s representation and responding to its tragedies at a time of rising racism.Erika Moritsugu was two days in to a visit to Park City, Utah, to celebrate the first community space for Asian Americans at the Sundance Film Festival when she was called away to Monterey Park, Calif., where a mass shooting on the eve of Lunar New Year ultimately left 11 people dead.Overdressed in the wool layers and puffer coat she had packed for her original trip, Ms. Moritsugu, 51, was forced to switch gears quickly: from cheerleading mode in ski country to caretaker in the suburbs of Los Angeles.“I can’t imagine how excruciating it must be, how painful and how hurtful this must be for those of you who have lost friends and neighbors and aunties and uncles and grandmas,” she said at a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting two days after the shooting in January, pausing to regain her composure. “I share my grief with you as we mourn the tragic death of our brothers and sisters.”“This work is so hard because it’s really, really important,” Ms. Moritsugu, the child of fourth-generation Japanese and fifth-generation Chinese immigrant parents, said in an interview. “People warned me when I was appointed that I would need to be very attentive and careful because this isn’t something that you can analyze with a clinical distance.” Ms. Moritsugu, who reports to the White House chief of staff, previously served in the Obama administration as an assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. She also served for about six years as a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill, including for the late Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and as legal counsel to Senator Tammy Duckworth . Between her time on Capitol Hill and her appointment to the White House, she worked for the Anti-Defamation League and the National Partnership for Women & Families. These days, she spends her time jetting to speaking engagements in cities across the country, between her office and the East and West Wings, and occasionally to Capitol Hill to chat with lawmakers and attend meetings of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. For too long, Asian Americans made up “an invisible story that was just swept under the rug or ignored and erased until someone needed to be scapegoated,” Ms. Moritsugu said. “It’s nearly impossible for us to be invisible anymore.”Read the New York Times report: https://nyti.ms/3n7lHlS Will China End U.S. Academic Pre-Eminence? According to an opinion by University of Texas Austin Professor Steven Mintz published by Inside Higher Ed on March 19, 2023, if any single theme can be said to dominate foreign affairs commentary in the United States, it’s the many threats to U.S. global pre-eminence: from climate change and extreme weather events. From cybersecurity attacks and disinformation campaigns. From threats to the dollar’s dominance as a global reserve currency. From economic espionage and intellectual property theft. From nuclear proliferation and infrastructure and supply chain attacks.Add another challenge to the list: China’s threat to American academic primacy.In 2010, the Columbia sociologist and former provost Jonathan Cole published The Great American University , a full-throated defense of the United States’ elite research universities. The book described these institutions as national treasures that were indispensable to the nation’s economic dynamism, technological prowess and global position as a great power.But Cole advanced two other arguments that made his book as cautionary as celebratory. The first was that the elite American research universities’ rise to global pre-eminence was a recent, highly contingent development that was largely a byproduct of the influx of foreign scholars during the 1930s and 1940s and the ravages wrought on European universities by World War II. The academy should be on notice: what can go up can also go down.His second key contention was that the elite research university—and therefore American pre-eminence—was far more fragile and vulnerable than the public or policy makers assumed. The list of challenges that he listed no doubt sounds familiar today: foreign competition for talent, restrictive visa policies, ideological constraints on academic inquiry, public disinvestment, endowment volatility and a misguided populist war against academic excellence.Now , a dozen years later, William C. Kirby , a former dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and a professor of China studies and business administration, has written a worthy successor to Cole’s admonition. The central question that Kirby asks in Empires of Ideas: Creating the Modern University from Germany to America to China is summed up by a chapter title—“Can China Lead the World of Universities?” Spoiler alert: “Perhaps.”Professor Mintz's takeaways from Kirby’s book: Universities can improve rapidly. But they can also decline quickly. Decline came from without, but also from within: from campus politicization and polarization, from a retreat from high academic standards and from the failure to retain and hire the most promising and productive scholars. Ambition is important and sustained ambition can make a big difference. But ambition is not enough. Quality scholars, by themselves, are insufficient. Great universities aren’t just an agglomeration of productive scholars; they are intellectual leaders. The relationship between elite education and national power and world leadership is dialectical. No great power is without a great university and, conversely, great powers cultivate great universities. Great powers understand that intellectual and cultural leadership is a key component of power; they understand that great powers are pacesetters in culture and education. Great universities attract talent from around the world and when some of those graduates return home, they carry with them ideas that they learned overseas. But the relationship between elite education and national power takes other forms. Elite universities produce a disproportionate share of leaders, while the research that their faculty undertake informs government policy. In turn, these institutions depend heavily on government funding. Read the Inside Higher Ed opinion: http://bit.ly/42pIFox NYS Senator John Liu and NYPD Officer Baimadajie Angwang On March 18, 2023, New York State Senator John Liu and New York Police Department (NYPD) Officer Baimadajie Angwang joined an AAPI history in K-12 legislation event. State Senator Liu represents a broad area of northeast Queens. He is chairperson of the New York State Senate's Committee on New York City Education and has sponsored State Senate Bill S6359A that requires public elementary and high schools to provide instruction in Asian American history and civic impact.According to a report by Gothamist on May 26, 2022, State Senator Liu said in the introducing the bill that the anti-Asian sentiment may be fueled by long-standing “ignorance” of the political and historical contributions of AAPI people. “This anti-Asian hate that we've seen so much of, it didn't just happen the last couple of years. It's been happening ever since the beginning of this country, ever since the first Asian Americans arrived at our shores,” Liu said. “Asian Americans have been scapegoats for a lot of things in our entire history, whether it be economic recession, international warfare, global pandemic – we get blamed,” Liu said. “And the reason we get blamed, and therefore hated and attacked, is because of ignorance.”NYPD Officer Angwang is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Tibetan ethnicity who served in Afghanistan as a marine and an Army reservist. However, he still fell victim to the now-defunct "China Initiative" and was accused of spying for China. Although his case was dismissed in January 2023, Angwang's case still appears in the FBI Transnational Repression webpage. His story is told here: https://bit.ly/3RIqXId "Even in this room, there is a lot to write about," State Senator Liu before introducing Officer Angwang in the March 18 event. "When members of the Chinese American community get into certain positions of significance, whether it be Dr. Wen Ho Lee , we have a police officer Angwang here, it is easy to blame the Asian guy. This guy after serving in the NYPD for so many years, including the Flushing community, suddenly out of the blue, they accuse him of being a spy for China. He is my friend. This is the kind of things that our communities continue to go through. All this anti-China rhetoric now. I am an American and my loyalty is with the United States of America. But all this talk about China is having an impact on people like you. So we have to pay much more attention to what's happening."Watch the video of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu0FyFQc_6s (13:23) News and Activities for the Communities 1. The Summit Tunnel: Diversity and Pride in Building the American Nation The 1882 Foundation and Culture Caucus will host an event at the Kennedy Center in Washington DC on Tuesday, March 21, starting at 6:00 pm ET. The Pacific Railroad Act was signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862. It set into motion a national effort to construct America’s first transcontinental railroad, and to undertake the century’s greatest engineering feat to cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Through a short film, lecture, and discussion, the program will show the visual magnificence of the crossing and its monumental historical significance. It will discuss the shameful, continuous defacement of the site which has led the National Trust for Historic Preservation to list it as one of the nation’s most endangered historic places. Up to 2,000 Chinese workers lost their lives building the railroad. The site is a sacred place for them as it is for native Americans and pioneers who also sacrificed and struggled to build the American nation. Register for the event: https://bit.ly/3JsEP5r 2 . The President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders The President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI) held its fifth public meeting at the White House on March 14, 2023. Commissioners deliberated and voted on additional recommendations to promote equity, justice, and opportunity for AANHPI communities for submission to President Biden. A final report is being prepared for expected release in October 2023. Watch the video of the meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uGaDQVTQXo (7:16:11) Subscribe to The APA Justice Newsletter Complete this simple form at https://bit.ly/2FJunJM to subscribe. Please share it with those who wish to be informed and join the fight. View past newsletters here: https://bit.ly/APAJ_Newsletters . Back View PDF March 21, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Learn More Contact Us Government Add a Title

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

Newsletter - #21 Anti-Racial Profiling Project Launches; UPenn Webinar; Chinese American Museum #21 Anti-Racial Profiling Project Launches; UPenn Webinar; Chinese American Museum Back View PDF October 7, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #112 FBI/DOJ Accountable? Xiaoxing Xi/OSTP; Science Needs Affirmative Action; COMPETES Act #112 FBI/DOJ Accountable? Xiaoxing Xi/OSTP; Science Needs Affirmative Action; COMPETES Act Back View PDF February 9, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Photo Album Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Explore Rally Against Discriminatory Housing Laws Tallahassee, Florida, July 18, 2023