Search this site

Newsletter - #202 Sign-on Letter to President Biden; Alien Land Laws; Florida Appeal/Motion; 8/26 March #202 Sign-on Letter to President Biden; Alien Land Laws; Florida Appeal/Motion; 8/26 March In This Issue #202 Invitation to Sign Letter to President Biden Urging Renewal of US-China Protocol on Scientific and Technological Cooperation Appeal and Motion Filed in Florida Lawsuit Against Discriminatory Alien Land Law Washington Post Reports on Alien Land Bills See You at "The March on Washington" on August 26, 2023 Invitation to Sign Letter to President Biden Urging Renewal of US-China Protocol on Scientific and Technological Cooperation Stanford University Professors Steven Kivelson and Peter F. Michelson issued the following letter calling for faculty members and scholars at U.S. institutions of higher learning to co-sign a letter to President Joe Biden to renew the US-China Protocol on Scientific and Technological Cooperation. Read the letter: https://bit.ly/3KP6wXG Sign on to the letter: https://bit.ly/3qGWC3r WHEN: Before Noon PDT on Thursday, August 24 Please forward to other members of the university community! Dear Colleagues, The US-China Protocol on Scientific and Technological Cooperation is due for renewal by August 27; in less than 6 days. The decision on whether the U.S. will pursue renewal of the Protocol will be made by the White House, mostly likely with discussion led by the National Security Council of the United States. This agreement has been the basis of scientific engagement between the US and China since it was first signed in 1979 and renewed approximately every five years thereafter. For an informative overview of the Protocol and a discussion of the case for renewing it have a look at a recent essay by Deborah Seligsohn, Senior Associate (non-resident) of CSIS. See also recent coverage in the WSJ and in Reuters . If the Protocol is not renewed by the United States - which seems plausible at present moment - it is likely to have significant negative impact on ongoing and future scientific exchanges between the US and China. We believe that the multiple benefits of robust scientific exchange vastly outweigh any security issues that accompany such openness. Furthermore, the Protocol does not commit the US to any specific activities but provides a framework for discussion and developing specific agreements. The US should not slam the door. If you agree with us, please consider signing an open letter to the President of the United States and the members of the National Security Council expressing support for renewing this agreement. This can be done by clicking on this link and following the instructions. You can also read the letter there. Please also consider forwarding this email to other members of the university community who you think might likewise be willing to sign. If you plan to sign, please do so before Noon PDT on Thursday, August 24. Sincerely, Steven Kivelson and Peter Michelson Appeal and Motion Filed in Florida Lawsuit Against Discriminatory Alien Land Law On August 21, 2023, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit against Senate Bill (SB) 264 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order, entered on August 17, 2023, ECF No. 69, denying Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Read the appeal: https://bit.ly/44eexMI Also on August 21, 2023, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit moved for the Florida District Court to issue an injunction pending appeal in this matter. Plaintiffs request a decision by Thursday, August 24, 2023. Read the motion: https://bit.ly/3KPkR6h Washington Post Reports on Alien Land Bills On August 21, 2023, the Washington Post published two articles on alien land bills: 2023/08/21 Washington Post : State lawmakers move to ban Chinese land ownership . https://wapo.st/45DMG9S 2023/08/21 Washington Post : Laws banning Chinese from buying property dredge up old history. https://wapo.st/45BdyHA According to these comprehensive reports, in Washington, the White House and federal lawmakers are pursuing ways to constrain Chinese-owned businesses like TikTok amid a bipartisan push to limit China’s reach.Now state legislators have embraced a novel, locally focused tactic aimed at China’s domestic investments: restrictions on Chinese land ownership.Lawmakers in 33 states have introduced 81 bills this year that would prohibit the Chinese government, some China-based businesses and many Chinese citizens from buying agricultural land or property near military bases, according to a Washington Post analysis of data compiled by Asian Pacific American (APA) Justice, an advocacy group. A dozen of the bills are now law in states such as Alabama, Idaho and Virginia.Asian American advocacy groups and legislators have raised alarm that the new bills go beyond national security concerns and could encourage discrimination against Chinese Americans at a time of rising hate crimes — harking back to a time when they were openly barred from owning property.“There is ignorance out there that causes people to think that because you are Chinese you are part of the Chinese government,” said former Texas state representative Martha Wong , a Republican.While most bills also ban land ownership tied to other “foreign adversaries,” including Russia, Iran and North Korea, lawmakers’ rhetoric has focused almost exclusively on China — and some states have gone even further than targeting government entities. A Florida law also restricts land purchases by Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas.Critics say the movement is also being fueled by growing anti-Asian sentiment in the United States, evidenced by a rise in hate crimes that became particularly acute during the coronavirus pandemic.“President Trump calling covid-19 the China virus and kung flu laid the groundwork for people to blame China for their own misfortunes,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), who is Chinese American and has introduced a bill to combat the landownership restrictions. “Now we see this anti-China fever taking a different route, with politicians trying to gain political points by being more anti-China than the next person.” Wong, 84, testified against several Texas bills by describing how she lived for years as a child in her family’s grocery storage room because no one would rent or sell a home to her Chinese American father. “We do not want backward movement to the type of discrimination my father faced,” she said.The push in states to limit Chinese ownership has extended to Congress, where at least 11 bills aiming to restrict land buys by Chinese businesses and citizens have been introduced over the past three years. None has passed, but several are still pending, and the language from one bill was recently inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the Senate last month.Some experts say national security concerns are inflated because China and Chinese investors own a fraction of U.S. agricultural lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report shows Chinese investors own about 1 percent of American agricultural land, and only about 0.03 percent of that is farmland. The rest are agriculturally zoned properties that include rural roads, homesteads and non-farm-related buildings.“For purposes of food security, blocking Chinese or other foreign investors, that argument doesn’t hold a lot of water,” said Joe Glauber , USDA’s chief economist from 2008 to 2014 and now a senior researcher at the International Food Policy Research Institute. “We are already exporting a large portion of what we produce, so it is not a question of needing to keep this stuff at home. As far as farmland is concerned, what China owns is literally a drop in the bucket.”The bills face an uncertain legal future. The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the constitutionality of the Florida law, making some of the same arguments that caused several state supreme courts to strike down broad bans on land ownership by foreign citizens of Asian countries decades ago, including a pivotal California Supreme Court decision in 1952.“Banning people from buying a house based on where they are from is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Ashley Gorski , a lead attorney in the ACLU case against the state of Florida. “Everyone in the United States is entitled to equal protection under the constitution, including citizens of other countries.”“We expect the political rhetoric on this to escalate and also expect more legislation to be introduced and passed,” said John C. Yang , president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, which has been fighting the bills. “Even state legislators want to appear to be tough on China right now, and they are grasping for things that they can control in their own state legislatures to show that they are being tough.” For weeks this summer, South Florida real estate agent Josie Wang says she’s rushed to close property deals for many of her clients. The sales anxiety wasn’t sparked by the usual forces — high interest rates and low inventory.Instead, she was worried that her Chinese clients would soon face new hurdles to buying property in the United States. If the deals weren’t closed quickly, she warned them, they may need to consult an attorney before moving forward.Over the last few months, Montana, Virginia, and North Dakota have all passed legislation restricting the ability of Chinese nationals to buy property. Georgia, Iowa and Kansas, among others, are considering similar legislation.In Florida, which has passed one of the strictest versions of the law, Chinese nationals can’t buy property within 10 miles of any military bases — the state has 21 of them — or critical infrastructure such as airports. Under the law, which is being challenged in court, those who sell property to Chinese immigrants could face stiff penalties, including a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison.Asked about the concerns among some people in the Asian community, Jeremy Redfern , Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ’s spokesman, didn’t directly respond, writing in an email, “There is no reasonable way of responding to unnamed ‘Asian Americans in Florida.’”For some Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans the new laws have been a hurtful reminder of anti-Asian laws that banned them from immigrating to the United States or buying agriculture property in the country for decades.“This is not right, we live in the 21st Century,” said Winnie Tang , who moved to the United States from China 45 years ago and lives in Miami. The laws, she says, remind her of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — a 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States. “We are being singled out to be discriminated against by other people.”“My face is Chinese,” Tang said. “So that means in the future, if I want to buy any property they could use this law to force me to show ID to prove I’m a citizen and not related to the Chinese government … This law gives people the right to discriminate against me openly.”Critics have called such laws discriminatory and the Department of Justice has said about the Florida version of the law: “These unlawful provisions will cause serious harm to people simply because of their national origin, contravene federal civil rights laws, undermine constitutional rights, and will not advance the State’s purported goal of increasing public safety.” Legislation in Texas, which aimed to ban all property ownership by Chinese citizens, died in the House of Representatives after massive protest from the Asian American community. “I don’t think the Republicans fully appreciated was how unbelievably angry the Asian community was,” Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu , who represents a heavily Chinese district in Houston, said.Some Asian Americans say they have experienced more hate crimes since the pandemic began.“This has always been the singular, major discrimination against all Asian Americans,” Wu said. “That Asian Americans are never truly American enough, that Asian Americans are always just a hair’s breadth away from betraying the country and doing whatever their home country tells them to.”The United States has taken drastic measures against Asian Americans before, said Mae Ngai , a professor of Asian American Studies at Columbia University, noting that during World War II, more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent were forced into camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.“This is where it leads. It leads to putting so-called enemy aliens in concentration camps. I don’t think it’s a ridiculous proposition,” Ngai said. “We should be very, very concerned.”APA Justice tracks the alien land bills at https://www.apajustice.org/alien-land-bills.html , including a map and a list of state bills at https://bit.ly/43oJ0YI See You at "The March on Washington" on August 26, 2023 On August 26, 2023, a 2023 March on Washington will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders in 1963, to continue the fight for democracy, social justice and civil rights. Join the King family at the Lincoln Memorial to honor the past, acknowledge the present and march toward a future of progress and equality.Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities will join the March to continue the landmark moment in the struggle against racial profiling and hate. Help to distribute the Yellow Whistles to amplify our voice. Please wear yellow to symbolize our struggle for justice and hope. Show our support of peoples of color and conscience. UCA: 纪念“我有一个梦想”演讲60周年 . UCA诚挚邀请您参加8月26日在林肯纪念堂举办的一场特殊活动，以纪念并见证美国历史的重要时刻。 这是一个值得我们每个人珍视的机会，让我们一同回顾并向前看，思考过去的成就、面对现在的挑战、展望未来的希望。林肯纪念堂作为美国历史的见证者，见证了种族平等、人权尊重和社会进步的重要进程。60年前，马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King Jr.）在这里发表了那篇永载史册的“我有一个梦想”演讲，为美国的平等与正义倡导奠定了基石，成为了社会变革的象征。 在这个特殊的日子里，我们将一同回望过去，追忆那些勇敢的先驱者们为种族平等而奋斗的历程，从60年前的种种挑战到今天我们所面临的机遇与挑战。我们希望通过这次活动，传承那份坚韧和勇气，汲取历史的智慧，为我们未来的努力指明方向。 2023/08/21 Dragon Eagle TV: 8月26日让我们相聚林肯纪念堂穿越60年见证美国历史 (video 0:39) Back View PDF August 22, 2023 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #406 Franklin Tao, Jane Wu Lawsuits; Trump on Birthright Citizenship Again; Census Rules; + #406 Franklin Tao, Jane Wu Lawsuits; Trump on Birthright Citizenship Again; Census Rules; + In This Issue #406 · Professor Franklin Tao Files Lawsuit Against University of Kansas · Estate of Dr. Jane Wu’s Lawsuit Against Northwestern University Moving Forward · Trump Tries Again to Limit Birthright Citizenship · Controversial Rule Changes at Census Bureau · News and Activities for the Communities Professor Franklin Tao Files Lawsuit Against University of Kansas According to Kansas Reflector on August 10, 2026, Feng "Franklin" Tao 陶丰 , a Chinese American chemist and former tenured chemical engineering professor at the University of Kansas (KU), filed a new federal lawsuit on July 21, 2026, alleging KU's handling of his case caused lasting harm to his career and reputation — the latest chapter in a saga that began when he became one of the first professors arrested under the first Trump administration's "China Initiative" in 2019. Background : An anonymous tip accusing Professor Tao of espionage prompted KU to notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) and build a case against him. He was federally indicted and criminally convicted of making a false statement — a conviction later overturned on appeal. The lawsuits : This is Professor Tao's second suit against KU. He first sued in 2025 seeking reinstatement and alleging discrimination. This newest suit alleges KU retaliated against him because of that 2025 discrimination complaint, and claims the university violated state and federal workplace discrimination protections. Central dispute — the faculty review board: Professor Tao's lawsuit centers on KU's decision to convene a temporary faculty review board composed of non-tenured faculty to evaluate the charges against him. Professor Tao argues this composition created an inherent conflict of interest, since non-tenured faculty members' careers remain subject to KU's discretion — undermining the independence the review process was supposed to guarantee. He raised objections to the board's makeup, but the board dismissed his concerns in March 2026, leaving him — per the lawsuit — "unable to contest the charges against him, unable to secure reinstatement, and indefinitely denied the fair process to which he is entitled." Where things stand : KU had not responded to the lawsuit as of the article's publication (August 10, 2026). Professor Tao accepted a non-tenured position in Arizona in April 2026. He is seeking compensation for lost wages, plus unspecified damages for reputational injury, emotional distress, and pain and suffering. Read APA Justice Impacted Person Profile on Professor Tao: https://bit.ly/4i0WZLw Estate of Dr. Jane Wu’s Lawsuit Against Northwestern University Moving Forward According to Evanston RoundTable on July 16, 2026, a Cook County Circuit Court judge largely rejected Northwestern University's (NU) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the estate of Jane Wu, a former Feinberg School of Medicine professor who died by suicide in July 2024 after the university shut down her research lab. The ruling : At a hearing on July 16, Judge Jonathan Clark Green denied Northwestern's motion to dismiss on eight of the nine counts in the suit — including false imprisonment, medical malpractice, and discrimination based on national origin. He asked Dr. Wu's estate's attorney, Thomas Geoghegan , to file an amended complaint by July 30 addressing only the ninth count, related to breach of contract over NU's denial of tenure. NU must file its amended response by August 20, with a status hearing set for August 27 to begin discussing discovery — meaning the case is likely headed into that phase. Background : Dr. Wu, a China-born naturalized U.S. citizen, became the subject of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) administrative investigation in 2019 into her ties to China, conducted as part of the Trump administration's "China Initiative." No charges were ever filed, and the NIH closed its investigation in 2023 — but according to the lawsuit, Feinberg leadership simultaneously cut her salary, citing lack of funding during the investigation period, and imposed new requirements for her to apply for future grants. In February 2024, NU closed part of her lab and reassigned her research team. The suit alleges the university "misleadingly" told her in May 2024 she could still apply for NIH funding, only to announce the closure of her remaining lab days later. Her background : Dr. Wu held a medical degree from Shanghai Medical University and a PhD in cancer biology from Stanford, joined NU's faculty in 2005 after two years at Vanderbilt, and published 176 peer-reviewed articles and three books over her career. Community response : More than 1,000 academics — from 44 states and over 300 institutions — signed a letter in February, sponsored by the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) and the Federation of Asian Professor Associations, calling on NU to apologize for its treatment of Dr. Wu. AASF Executive Director Gisela Perez Kusakawa called the ruling significant for "ensuring that universities respond appropriately to allegations and protect their faculty from discrimination." Dr. Wu's daughter, Elizabeth Rao — executor of her mother's estate — said in a statement that her "grief and anguish" over the university's treatment of her mother continues, and that the family is proceeding with the case. AsAmNews Report : In the AsAmNews report on July 16, two key legal details were added to the RoundTable report: NU's failed jurisdictional argument that no claim existed to transfer after Dr. Wu's death, and its failed argument that a psychiatric-unit transport "supported by reasonable grounds" could not support a false imprisonment claim — both rejected by Judge Green. It also includes a fuller AASF statement praising the ruling as a step toward "accountability and civil rights protections in American higher education." The Daily Northwestern Report : According to Daily Northwestern on July 31, 2026, NU’s legal assertion in Dr. Wu’s case that tenure rights were not breached has alarmed faculty leaders, leading to demands for a reaffirmation of tenure standards. In a May 18 brief supporting dismissal of the case, NU's lawyers argued that the Faculty Handbook's endorsement of American Association of University Professors' (AAUP’s) "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" does not create "individually enforceable contractual rights" — characterizing the handbook's language as "an endorsement of an educational philosophy, not a contractual incorporation." This directly contradicts how many faculty view the handbook, which NU-AAUP President Jorge Coronado described as effectively "a contract with the University." Coronado said faculty were "completely aghast" by the university's position, calling tenure "the foundation for academic freedom." NU-AAUP officers sent a letter on July 9 to University President Mung Chiang and Provost Erik Luijten asking them to affirm NU's commitment to tenure under AAUP standards and the Faculty Handbook. Faculty Senate leadership sent a similar letter. After the court largely denied NU's motion to dismiss on July 17, Luijten responded on July 21 by affirming "commitment to academic freedom" and citing Faculty Handbook definitions — but NU-AAUP Treasurer Michael Peshkin said officers felt this stopped short of directly affirming the institution of tenure itself. Incoming Faculty Senate President Rebecca Zorach said she hopes the legal position is not an accurate reflection of NU's actual stance, warning "there will certainly be a fight ahead" if it is. She and Peshkin both warned the implications extend well beyond Dr. Wu's case: if courts were to accept NU's interpretation that the handbook does not create enforceable rights, it could undermine tenure protections for all faculty and potentially allow arbitrary dismissals. Coronado echoed this, saying the same arguments used against Dr. Wu "could apply to any faculty member." Peshkin called the university's timing especially reckless given heightened scrutiny of higher education under the Trump administration, while Zorach noted tenure-track positions are already shrinking nationally, representing a broader "erosion of tenure" this case risks accelerating. Read APA Justice Impacted Person Profile on Dr. Wu: https://bit.ly/JaneYingWu Trump Tries Again to Limit Birthright Citizenship According to multiple media reports, President Donald Trump signed two new executive orders on August 6, 2026, once again seeking to narrow birthright citizenship — just five weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara that his original 2025 attempt was unconstitutional. Background Trump's first-day-in-office 2025 order sought to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented or temporarily-present parents. It was blocked almost immediately and never took effect. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck it down, reaffirming that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. What the New Orders Do The first order carves out specific categories the administration argues fall outside constitutional protection — children of foreign government employees, of designated foreign terrorist group members, and of parents "engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship." The second targets "birth tourism," directing the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to crack down on foreign nationals who travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth. Legal Groups Move to Clarify the Barbara Ruling Still Applies On August 11, the same coalition that won Trump v. Barbara — the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund — filed a motion in the New Hampshire federal court where the case originated, rather than pursuing an entirely new lawsuit. The motion asks the court to make "unquestionably clear" that the citizenship of babies covered by the existing class-action ruling remains protected despite Trump's new order, arguing: "The Supreme Court confirmed that there are no additional exceptions beyond those recognized in United States v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and the Fourteenth Amendment is not subject to executive (or legislative) revision. President Trump's continued resistance to that principle calls for this Court's renewed intervention." “President Trump may not like the fact that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, and he may not like that he lost in the Supreme Court, but that is really beside the point,” said Cody Wofsy , deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel. “It’s well past time for these illegal and cruel attacks on children’s citizenship to end.” Asian Law Caucus Executive Director Aarti Kohli called the new order "a desperate and brazen attempt to bypass the Supreme Court's decision," adding: "As the court has already affirmed, it's the Constitution, not the president, who determines who is American... Immigrant communities know that our rights are on the line, especially when the government uses us as scapegoats. The Trump administration already lost once and it will lose again." Legal Defense Fund Deputy Director of Litigation Amia Trigg said the groups "will not stand idly by as the executive branch blatantly ignores the court's authority in its crusade against American children," while Democracy Defenders Fund's Norm Eisen called the new attempt "as constitutionally futile as it is cruel." Why This Matters for AANHPI Community Asian American legal organizations have been central to this fight from the start — Asian Law Caucus and Advancing Justice–AAJC were both named plaintiffs' counsel in the original case. The constitutional principle at stake traces directly to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court affirmed a Chinese American man's citizenship by birth despite his parents' Chinese nationality — decided during the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Advocates have repeatedly cited that case as a reminder of what's historically at stake when birthright citizenship is narrowed. Rep. Grace Meng , Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), said in a statement, “President Trump still believes he can decide who gets to be an American, even after the Supreme Court rejected his unlawful attempt to end birthright citizenship just weeks ago. The Constitution does not bend to the whims of any president, and Trump will soon learn that his latest executive orders will suffer the same defeat as his last.” Controversial Rule Changes at Census Bureau Several developments have kept the Census Bureau in the news recently, with the most immediate controversy centering on the noise-infusion ban we covered in APA Justice Newsletter Issue #405 — plus two other significant, related fights over Census methodology. Talking Points Memo ( TPM ) reported August 7 that Census Bureau officials, speaking publicly at a major statistical conference, conceded that the June 4 rule banning "noise infusion" privacy techniques will make it impossible for the agency to publish certain data it has historically released — a development TPM notes "could especially harm minority groups." Bureau representatives denied the policy change had political objectives, though TPM reports that experts and advocacy groups believe otherwise. Salil Vadhan , a computer scientist who advised the Bureau on its use of differential privacy and attended the conference, said: "I saw the order as taking us back several decades in the tool kit for disclosure avoidance and privacy protection." Experts have also criticized the process itself, telling TPM the Commerce Department failed to seek expert input as is customary for this kind of policy shift — "making it an administration political process instead of a public process with expertise in oversight." Georgetown's Center for Children and Families separately reported that the underlying order — Commerce Department Administrative Order (DAO) 216-26 — was made effective immediately, with no opportunity for the standard public comment or expert review process, warning it threatens both health policy research and broader federal data systems. Separately, in March 2026, more than 60 members of Congress — led in part by CAPAC Chair Grace Meng and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat — sent a bicameral letter to the Commerce Department opposing proposed changes to the Census Bureau's 2026 Operational Test, a key preparation exercise ahead of the 2030 count. The letter warned that the proposed changes — cutting test sites from six to two, reducing the respondent pool by 75%, replacing the standard census form with the longer American Community Survey, and adding a citizenship question — would make an accurate count "impossible" and undermine a decade's worth of federal funding and representation. NPR reported in February that the citizenship-question proposal arrived amid a broader Republican redistricting push, with some GOP lawmakers separately pursuing efforts to exclude non-citizens entirely from the population counts used to allocate congressional seats — despite the 14th Amendment's requirement that apportionment be based on the "whole number of persons in each state." Multiple GOP-led states have also filed lawsuits seeking to force the Bureau to subtract undocumented residents and certain visa holders from those counts. Why This Matters for AANHPI Community Taken together, these developments — the noise-infusion ban, the citizenship question, and reduced test-site sampling — compound concerns we raised about the accuracy and reliability of Census data affecting Asian Pacific American communities specifically. Reduced granularity and smaller sample sizes tend to disproportionately affect smaller or geographically dispersed populations, a category that includes many AANHPI subpopulations that already face undercounting and disaggregation challenges. What's Next None of these rule changes appear to have been reversed in response to expert or congressional pushback so far. With the 2026 Operational Test serving as a dress rehearsal for the 2030 census, how these disputes are resolved in the coming months will likely shape both the accuracy and privacy protections of the next full decennial count. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/08/26 C100: An Advice and Networking Event (Technology) 2026/09/01 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/09/03 C100: Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes - Hao Jiang TianVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the APA Justice website at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF August 13, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #344 [APA Justice] 8/4 Meeting; Ohio's Bills; China Initiative Harms Science, Security, and Dr. GK Chang+ #344 [APA Justice] 8/4 Meeting; Ohio's Bills; China Initiative Harms Science, Security, and Dr. GK Chang+ In This Issue #344 · 2025/08/04 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · Ohio's Pending Alien Land Bills · Revival of China Initiative Harms US Science and Security · Dr. Gee-Kung Chang: "From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire" · Third District Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Restrictions · News and Activities for the Communities 2025/08/04 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, August 4, 2025, starting at 1:55 pm ET.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 distinguished speakers: · Al Green, Member, U.S. Congress (invited) · Munira Abdullahi , Member, Ohio House of Representatives · Guangya Liu , Member, North Carolina House of Representatives · Min Fan , Executive Director, US Heartland China Association 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 . *****Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony at Stanford University on July 25-27, 2025. Picture provided by Vincent Wang , Co-Organizer of APA Justice. Ohio's Pending Alien Land Bills Ohio State Representative Munira Abdullahi is a confirmed invited speaker at the APA Justice monthly meeting on August 4, 2025. We have requested her to update us on House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 in Ohio, as well as several bills targeting immigrant communities and people of color this year as well.House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 seeks to restrict land ownership by foreign governments and nationals from “adversary” nations—particularly China—within 25 miles of military and critical infrastructure sites, citing national security concerns. Opponents argue the bill is overly broad, potentially banning ownership across nearly the entire state, and unjustly targeting ordinary immigrants and visa holders. Critics—including lawmakers, legal advocates, and hundreds of Ohio residents—warn the bill promotes racial profiling, echoes historical discrimination, and violates constitutional rights. A key forced-sale provision was removed, but the bill still faces widespread opposition and potential legal challenges. Read the Ohio Capital Journal report: https://bit.ly/4mh5m7J We thank Ohio State Representative Juanita Brent for bringing these pending bills to our attention during the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 2, 2025. Rep. Brent, the daughter of an immigrant, provided a comprehensive overview of six pending legislative bills in Ohio that raise serious concerns about discrimination against immigrants—particularly those from countries such as China and Korea. These bills reflect a broader national trend and illustrate the state's overreach into matters that should fall under federal jurisdiction. · House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88 have drawn significant attention. They would prohibit individuals from countries the U.S. designates as adversaries from owning homes or businesses, especially near critical infrastructure. Similar legislation has been introduced in 31 other states. · Senate Bill 281 would require hospitals to allow federal immigration enforcement officers entry. Hospitals that fail to comply could lose grant funding and have their Medicaid provider agreements affected. · Senate Bill 282 proposes that courts consider a person’s immigration status when determining sentencing and bail. · House Bill 200 would create criminal penalties for unlawful presence, including fines and a 72-hour window for voluntary departure. It is currently facing opposition in the Public Safety Committee. · House Bill 42 mandates that certain agencies collect and report data on individuals’ citizenship or immigration status. It has received one hearing in the Government Oversight Committee. · House Bill 26 would require law enforcement to share information about arrestees with federal immigration authorities. It would also prohibit Ohio municipalities from providing benefits to undocumented immigrants. Municipalities that fail to comply could risk losing their Local Government Fund allocations. State Rep. Brent emphasized that these bills effectively legalize discrimination and hate—an alarming development. As a country, we have witnessed the consequences of such discrimination in the past. These proposed laws open the door to legalized bias based solely on a person’s country of origin or immigration status.State Rep. Brent stressed that immigration is a federal issue and not the responsibility of individual states. By pursuing these bills, Ohio is overstepping its authority. None of these proposals address legitimate state-level concerns, and many are likely unconstitutional. Nonetheless, they must be challenged at the state level. Revival of China Initiative Harms US Science and Security According to the South China Morning Post , the US House of Representatives is poised to advance a key spending bill that could revive the controversial “China Initiative” – a program that unfairly targeted Chinese American researchers, derailed careers and devastated lives long after it was ended in 2022. The Fiscal Year 2026 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill does not name the program directly, but language in the accompanying report calls for its re-establishment to “maintain America’s competitive edge” and “counter China’s malign ambitions to steal American research”.A scheduled committee meeting to debate the bill was cancelled on July 23, but experts said the provision was likely to remain as the legislation moved towards the Senate.“As a victim of the past China Initiative, I am disheartened by ongoing efforts in Congress to reinstate the misguided programme,” said Gang Chen 陈刚 , a mechanical engineer at MIT who was arrested in 2021 before all charges were dropped.“It is not only discriminatory, but also harms America’s ability to attract top global talent – ultimately weakening, not strengthening, our national security,” he said in a statement released by the Asian American Scholar Forum, a US-based non-profit organization that advocates for academic belonging and equity in Asian-American and Pacific Islander communities.Professor Chen is among more than 1,000 US researchers and university staff led by Stanford physicists Steven Kivelson and Peter Michelson in signing a letter that urged lawmakers to remove the provision. The letter, dated July 22, warned that reviving the initiative would deter talent, damage innovation and inadvertently advance China’s own recruitment efforts.Read the South China Morning Post report: https://bit.ly/4omPcvo Over 50 civil society organizations inclduing Defending Rights & Dissent have also sent a joint letter urging the full Appropriations committee to strike the provision. Dr. Gee-Kung Chang: "From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire" Robert Fisher , Partner at Nixon Peabody, was the attorney who successfully defended MIT Professor Gang Chen 陈刚 . He spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025, and introduced Professor Gee-Kung (GK) Chang 張繼昆 , whom Robert also represented with colleague Brian Kelly .Rob said this is a critical time for the country and for the Asian American community. Although the China Initiative was officially ended, similar prosecutions are still occurring—particularly targeting professors, scientists, and professionals with ties to China.Rob explained that GK was accused of wire fraud based on allegations that he and a colleague from ZTE conspired to misuse J-1 visa students, supposedly having them work at ZTE while being paid by Georgia Tech.However, the defense pointed out that, even according to the government’s own account, the students were working at Georgia Tech. The indictment was fundamentally flawed—it failed to allege that the financial component was the actual object of the fraud. As a result, the court dismissed most of the charges, leaving only one remaining.That final charge—visa fraud—was also challenged. GK had no role in the visa application process, and Georgia Tech had never provided training on compliance or rules regarding foreign collaboration. Without knowledge or training, there could not have been intent to defraud. Eventually, the government dropped the last remaining charge. GK was fully exonerated after a four-year ordeal under the China Initiative.GK's case highlights a broader issue: many professors were once encouraged to collaborate with China, only to later face prosecution as political attitudes shifted. These retroactive investigations have damaged careers and chilled academic collaboration, especially within the Asian American community.Professor GK Chang shared his personal account of a harrowing legal ordeal during the May 2025 APA Justice monthly meeting. Quoting his written statement titled " From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire ," GK told his story that "I stand before you today, not as a victim of injustice, but as a witness to the power of integrity, forged in the fiercest fires of adversity. My journey was never just about reclaiming my freedom — it was about turning pain into a higher purpose, one that lights the way for those still suffering injustice."GK was born in China in 1947, moved to Taiwan as a baby during the Chinese Civil War, and came to the U.S. in 1970 for graduate studies in physics. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside in 1976 and became a U.S. citizen in 1981.With 23 years of experience in industry—including leadership roles at Bell Labs, Bellcore, Telcordia, and OpNext—GK became a pioneer in optoelectronic integration and fiber-optic communications, holding over 50 patents. He received multiple awards, including the R&D 100 Award and the Bellcore President’s Award.In 2002, he joined Georgia Tech as an Eminent Scholar Chair Professor. There, he led major NSF-sponsored research on fiber-wireless networks that laid the foundation for 5G and 6G technologies. He advised 30 Ph.D. students, published over 500 papers, and earned Fellow honors from IEEE and the Optical Society of America. He was recognized as a distinguished alumnus of National Tsing Hua University and received Georgia Tech’s Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award.On March 24, 2021, GK’s life was changed forever when nine federal agents arrested him at home without warning, accusing him of conspiracy and wire fraud under the now-defunct “China Initiative.” Despite his clean record and decades of academic and industry contributions, he was publicly indicted without prior notice. Though released on a low bail, the arrest devastated his personal and professional life. The media portrayed him as guilty, his reputation collapsed, and colleagues and friends distanced themselves, leaving him isolated and emotionally shattered.Despite being wrongfully indicted, GK stood firm, relying on his values, family, and a few loyal allies. Through careful review of over a million pages of documents with his legal team of Rob Fisher and Brian Kelly, he uncovered major flaws in the case against him: factual inaccuracies, missing evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The charges lacked legal grounding and were based partly on the testimony of a disgruntled former student. The government misunderstood academic norms and pursued the case without proof of intent, fraud, or personal gain—revealing a deeply flawed and unjust prosecution.Faced with multiple plea offers, including one to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor, GK refused to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit. He chose to fight on despite financial strain. A pivotal moment came in August 2023, when a prosecutor admitted in court that GK had not gained any money from the alleged offenses—contradicting the indictment’s claims. This crucial fact had been withheld from the grand jury, exposing serious prosecutorial misconduct and strengthening his case for vindication.The case shifted dramatically after the court dismissed 9 of the 10 charges on March 1, 2024. Empowered by this decision, GK demanded a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, confident of full vindication. However, the emotional strain took a serious toll: he suffered a heart attack in May 2024 and underwent emergency surgery. As he recovered, his focus turned not just to clearing his name, but reclaiming his dignity. The ordeal was nearing its end, but had already come at a profound personal cost.The final charge was dismissed on April 14, 2025, through a motion filed by the prosecutor and approved by the judge, fully exonerating GK without a trial. Yet, the long-awaited freedom brought no joy. After four years of legal battles, he was left emotionally scarred, physically worn, and financially depleted. Professionally, the damage was irreversible—four crucial years of innovation and contribution at the peak of his career were lost forever. Despite the pain, the ordeal brought GK clarity and a renewed sense of purpose. He emerged not only as a survivor but as a seeker of truth, justice, and understanding. His faith in the justice system was shaken, as he came to see its vulnerability to error, bias, and ambition. He now believes that justice does not automatically protect the innocent and must be actively pursued with courage and conviction. Upholding what is right requires strength, even in the face of overwhelming adversity—because justice is never guaranteed, only earned. Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , GK concluded his statement by stating: "I share my testimony, 'A Journey Through Fire,' not for sympathy, but as a warning—and as a beacon."To those suffering similar injustice:"You are not alone."And by standing together,"we can help ensure that no one else must endure this tribulation again." Read the story of Professor GK Chang: https://bit.ly/GeeKungChang . Read his statement " From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire ." Watch the video of Robert Fisher and GK Chang at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbh1EkabX6I (19:00). Third District Court Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Restrictions According to AP , Newsweek , The Hill , and multiple media reports, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented or temporary immigrants. This marks the third court ruling to do so, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions.Judge Sorokin found the executive order unconstitutional in a 23-page ruling . He said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. “That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,” the judge wrote. “In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration “are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.” For now, Trump's order remains blocked.Judge Sorokin's ruling aligned with the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals covering the western states inclduing California. The issue will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2025/07/28 (Digital) Travel Safety and Security Training2025/07/29 C100 Conversations – “Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes” with Linda Chao Yang2025/07/29 From Heartland to Mainland: 2025 Future Ag Leaders Delegation2025/07/29 Bridging Generations of U.S.-China Education Exchange: American Scholars to China2025/07/31 (Digital) Travel Safety and Security Training2025/07/31-08/10 Asian American International Film Festival2025/08/02-07 2025 Joint Statistical Meetings2025/08/04 APA Justice Monthly MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the 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 July 28, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

COVID-19 This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. The numbers Calls per hour 111 Feedback submitted 22 Average feedback per call 21 As of May 28, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few have passed and signed into state law; some have died; others are still pending. State-by-state links to the legislations and a companion map are provided below as community resources. They are collected from multiple sources including research by APA Justice, Advancing Justice | AAJC, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, media reports, and crowdsourcing. Due to the dynamic nature of these developments, we plan to update the information periodically. We anticipate the introduction or continuation of alien land and property bills into future state legislative sessions. Title Oct. 4th 2023 Tracking Bills Read More Latest developments

Yu Zhou, Li Chen Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #95 "China Initiative;" OSTP; ACLU, Sherry Chen, Mass Surveillance; 11/01 Meeting Summary #95 "China Initiative;" OSTP; ACLU, Sherry Chen, Mass Surveillance; 11/01 Meeting Summary Back View PDF November 10, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Xin Zhao, a prize-winning Ph.D. from the College of William & Mary in Virginia, was forced to flee the U.S. after a federal investigation that included a failed sting, airport stops and an unfounded child-porn search. July 18, 2019 On July 18, 2019, Bloomberg reported on the story of Xin Zhao, a prize-winning Ph.D. from the College of William & Mary in Virginia, whose startup fled the U.S. after a federal investigation that included a failed sting, airport stops and an unfounded child-porn search. “My dream was defeated,” says Zhao, whose crew-cut and boyish face belie the brash candor with which he tells his story. “I came here for freedom and security. Now fear is pushing us back to China.” Inventors with Chinese last names account for one out of every 10 new patents in the U.S. today, up from less than 2% in 1975. While China lost more than 50,000 inventors to emigration from 2002 to 2011, the U.S. welcomed a net gain of more than 190,000, as measured by patent registrations, according to data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization, an arm of the United Nations. Xin Zhao, a prize-winning Ph.D. from the College of William & Mary in Virginia, was forced to flee the U.S. after a federal investigation that included a failed sting, airport stops and an unfounded child-porn search. Previous Next U.S. Targeting of Chinese Scientists Fueling a Brain Drain

3. Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights 2025-2026 Global Tensions Local Dimensions Wednesday, June 3, 2026 As geopolitical ties between the United States and China remain unsteady, the impact extends beyond diplomacy and into the lived experiences of people at home. For diaspora communities, shifts in foreign policy can shape everything from public perception to legal protections, raising complex questions about identity, belonging, and rights. The third webinar in this series examines the downstream effects of U.S. foreign policy through both a historical and contemporary lens. Drawing parallels across time, the conversation will explore how periods of international strain have influenced domestic policies and legal interpretations—from immigration restrictions to citizenship rights—and how these dynamics continue to evolve today. The session will explore how narratives of rivalry and suspicion can translate into real-world consequences for communities with heritage ties to countries at the center of geopolitical tension. We will discuss the tradeoffs policymakers face and provide a nuanced understanding of how national priorities intersect with civil liberties. Participants are encouraged to bring questions and perspectives as we explore what it means to navigate global tensions at a local, human level. The views expressed by the panelists are their own and do not represent the views of their employer or any organization with which they are affiliated. Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #253 Forum with FBI; US-China Tensions; Graduate Assistants United; AASF Video Competition #253 Forum with FBI; US-China Tensions; Graduate Assistants United; AASF Video Competition In This Issue #253 · Forum Announced: "A Dialogue Between Academic/APA Communities With The FBI" · The Impact of U.S.-China Tensions on Asian Americans in Government · Graduate Assistants United Rally Against Florida SB 846 · AASF: Video Competition to Honor Asian American Scientists · News and Activities for the Communities Forum Announced: "A Dialogue Between Academic/APA Communities With The FBI" During the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 6, 2024, Nabila Mansoor, President, Texas Multicultural Advocacy Coalition (TMAC), and Dr. Kenneth M. Evans, Scholar in Science and Technology Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, announced that TMAC and the Baker Institute and Office of Innovation at Rice University will co-host a joint forum with APA Justice on "A Dialogue Between Academic/AAPI Communities with The FBI." WHAT: A Dialogue Between Academic/AAPI Communities with The FBI WHEN: June 6, 2024, 4:00 - 6:00 pm Central Time WHERE: In-person, Rice University, Houston, Texas; virtual Zoom webinar information to be announced HOSTS: Texas Multicultural Advocacy Coalition (TMAC); Baker Institute for Public Policy and Office of Innovation at Rice University; APA Justice SPEAKERS: · Neal Lane , Senior Fellow, Baker Institute; Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy · Gordon Quan , Managing Partner & Co-Founder, Quan Law Group · David Donatti , Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU of Texas · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum · Jill Murphy , Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, FBI Headquarters · Douglas Williams, Jr. , Special Agent in Charge, FBI Houston · Georgette "GiGi" Pickering , Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI Houston · Kelly Choi , Supervisory Special Agent, FBI Houston More information about the forum will be announced when they become available. The Impact of U.S.-China Tensions on Asian Americans in Government A morning session at the Committee 100 conference on April 19, 2024, explored the nuanced potential barriers to career advancement that spin from the tensions with China, the complexities of obtaining security clearances, and the uncomfortable scrutiny regarding loyalty that Asian Americans endure due to concerns over foreign influence.Congressman Andy Kim, a Korean American, was not able to participate in the session due to a vote in the House of Representatives. A clip of his interview with MSNBC in 2021 was played to open the session. Congressman Kim revealed that when he worked at the State Department, he had a top secret security clearance and worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he was told one day that he was banned from working on issues related to the Korean Peninsula although he did not apply to work on such issues. It left him with the feeling that his own country didn't trust him for some reason because of his last name and because of his heritage although he was born in the United States. He was banned from working on these issues because of concerns about his loyalty and xenophobia. It was deeply hurtful. It took him some time to be able to talk about the episode because part of him wanted to just keep his head down and keep working and show through his hard work that this is wrong. He eventually came to realize that he cannot just assume that these issues of racism will just get better. We have to stand up and speak out on behalf of the victims and many others who are frightened, he said. Congressman Kim delivered brief remarks at the evening gala: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP3RlXrHIcA (2:03). He is married to a Chinese American, and they have two young boys. He also served as a United States National Security Council official under the Obama Administration. Congressman Kim has represented New Jersey's 3rd congressional district since 2019 and is running for the U.S. Senate in 2024. Dr. Jiashen You , Chair of the Asian American Government Executive Network (AAGEN), a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to promote, expand, and support Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander leadership in Government, followed with a 3-slide presentation . Starting with a report published by the Partnership for Public Service, Dr. You quoted a report released by the Partnership for Public Service on trends over 25 years of the Senior Executive Service (SES), the highest level for civil career servants in the federal government. He then shared that the "bamboo ceiling" still exists for Asian Americans to make the leap to an SES, despite the community seeing rapid growth in its share in recent years. He ended the presentation by highlighting the security denial rates for people with family or financial ties to China [link to Bloomberg article https://bit.ly/4b7jWZW . In addition, Dr. You recounted his personal experience hearing about Dr. Wen Ho Lee 's case being widely reported during his semester in college and living in America. Despite being capable of receiving clearance in the past, the impact of the "perpetual foreigner" notion deterred him from applying to many senior-level jobs that require top-secret clearance, leading to an even narrower window of opportunities. This is not an uncommon experience for first-generation Asian American government employees. Carol Lam , Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, presented a primer on security clearance and remarked that federal policy sets out the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in denying or granting security clearance. However, those factors take on more or less weight depending on political relationships between the United States and the country of concern, rendering the final decision somewhat subjective. Ms. Lam noted the importance of keeping the nation's attention on potential unfair biases in security clearance decisions in order to prevent those biases from becoming entrenched. Ms. Lam did note one positive development in the form of Secretary of State Blinken's decision in March 2023 to lift many State Department assignment restrictions based on employees' country of origin or familial or financial relationships in that country. Chuck Rosenburg , Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, remarked that all nations in the world spy on each other, including China and the United States, with the possible exception of the "five eyes" nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The session was moderated by Paula Madison , Chair and CEO, 88 Madison Media Inc. and a member of the Committee of 100. Graduate Assistants United Rally Against Florida SB 846 Graduate Assistants United (GAU) has been a labor union at the University of Florida (UF) since 1972. It represents 4,400 graduate assistants and research assistants at UF. It was a major organizer of the rally against Florida Senate Bill (SB) 846, which is also called the "Countries of Concern" bill, in Gainesville, Florida, on March 26, 2024. Eva Garcia Ferres , Co-President of GAU, published a report on the rally in the April/May edition of the Gainesville Iguana . According to her report, SB 846 does not specifically prohibit the admission of applicants, but it does create a very important and hostile roadblock for prospective graduate assistants, postdocs, and faculty members. The bill requires an extra screening conducted by a Research Integrity Office. The screening is supposed to verify all attendance, employment, publications, and contributions listed in the application prior to any interview or offer of a position to the applicant.The first problem is logistical. Many graduate applications are due early to late December, and many interviews are offered and conducted around early spring. There are over 4,000 graduate assistants at University of Florida, approximately half of graduate assistants are international students, and of the international student population a substantial portion come from China and Iran. This means that for every application cycle, the Research Integrity Office would need to thoroughly vet and make risk assessments for all applicants within a very limited timeline. The capacity and ability of the Research Integrity Office to do so is questioned. The second point of concern is the lack of transparency regarding the Research Integrity Office and the guidelines they are to use to make the risk assessments. Neither the bill itself nor the Board of Governors’ guidelines provide a definition of risk or a way to measure risk. It thus must fall upon the University and the Research Integrity Office to create the standard and apply it. The offices have not responded to these inquiries.In addition, there are draconian consequences for those who "fail" the screening (i.e., those who are deemed a risk, whatever that may be) because they will be reported to the FBI and any other law enforcement agency as determined by the Board of Governors.The Board of Governors’ guidelines reserve the right to make decisions about applicants and collaborations with entities from the seven countries based on their “value.” The report asks, "How is value determined? What makes the Board of Governors or the Research Integrity Office better suited for determining the value of international applicants and collaborations than the experts in the field?" "We know that applicants are being denied admission offers, that faculty cannot hire their top applicants, and that researchers cannot collaborate with prominent scholarsin the field purely because of nationality," the report said.If departments and faculty cannot hire their top applicants, then research and teaching will suffer. If the University will not accept visiting professors and scholars from“countries of concern,” then the University will miss on key expertise, new perspectives, and important scholarly connections. Learning and innovation are the pillars ofacademia. They are pursued in collaboration and cannot flourish in echo chambers and monoculture settings. They lead to the destruction of academic freedom. Decisions on who to hire, what to teach, and what to research have always been made by experts in the field, but this is no longer the case in Florida, the GAU report concludes.Read the Gainesville Iguana report: https://bit.ly/3ULrHze A lawsuit against Florida SB 846 was filed with the Southern District Court of Florida on March 25, 2024: Yin v. Diaz (1:24-cv-21129) AASF: Video Competition to Honor Asian American Scientists WHAT: Video Competition to Honor Asian American Scientists WHEN: Contest Period: 12:00:01 am Eastern Time (ET) on May 1 through 11:59:59 pm ET on June 7, 2024 ET. WHO CAN PARTICIPATE: Legal residents of the 50 US states or DC who are age 14 - 18 who participate with their parent or guardian’s consent OFFICIAL RULES: https://bit.ly/4bnrPKN PRIZES : Each prize is a $1,000 Visa gift card. 40 prizes available across various categories. Prizes will be awarded to the parent/guardian of each winner, not the entrant. DESCRIPTION: Celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month by showcasing the achievements of prominent Asian American scientists. High schoolers are invited to create and share short videos highlighting these scientists, competing for a chance to win a $1,000 visa gift card. Multiple prizes available. HOW TO ENTER: https://bit.ly/3UtbrS5 News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2024/05/13-14 2024 APAICS Legislative Leadership Summit2024/05/14 2024 APAICS: 30th Annual Awards Gala2024/05/14 Serica Initiative: 7th Annual Women's Gala Dinner2024/05/22 Heritage, Culture, and Community: The Future of America's Chinatowns2024/06/02 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2024/06/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2024/06/06 A Dialogue Between Academic/AAPI Communities with The FBIVisit https://bit.ly/45KGyga for event details. Back View PDF May 8, 2024 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #402 NSF to Ban Most Research with China; National APA Museum; More ICE Shootings; + #402 NSF to Ban Most Research with China; National APA Museum; More ICE Shootings; + In This Issue #402 · NSF Moves to Ban Nearly All Research Collaborations With China · National APA Museum Commission Opens Comments as Trump Administration Report Defends Chinese Exclusion Act · ICE Shootings Mount as Trump Undercuts Reported DHS Vehicle-Stop Pause · News and Activities for the Communities NSF Moves to Ban Nearly All Research Collaborations With China Over the past several months, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has undergone the most significant governance disruption in its 76-year history — a dismantling of independent oversight that coincided with one of the most sweeping policy shifts in the agency's history: a near-total ban on research collaborations with China. Trump Fired the Entire National Science Board It started on April 24, 2026, when President Trump fired all 22 sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB) — the independent body that has jointly overseen NSF alongside its director since the agency's founding in 1950. Members received a terse email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office informing them their positions were "terminated, effective immediately," with no explanation given. The NSB's staggered six-year terms were specifically designed to insulate science funding decisions from short-term political pressure. Dismissed member Keivan Stassun (Vanderbilt) suggested the board's public criticism of Trump's proposed 55% NSF budget cut in May 2025 may have "antagonized the administration." Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the House Science Committee's ranking Democrat, called the firing "the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science," and later led 31 House Democrats in a letter demanding the board's reinstatement. The move left NSF without both a board and a permanent director — Sethuraman Panchanathan had resigned in April 2025, and Trump's nominee to replace him, Jim O'Neill , still has not been confirmed by the Senate. As of late May 2026, the American Association for the Advancement of Science was still publicly pressing the Senate HELP Committee for an open confirmation hearing, and no replacements for the 22 dismissed NSB seats had been announced. With no confirmed director and no board, day-to-day authority has fallen to career staff: Brian Stone as acting director, and Rebecca Spyke Keiser — NSF's chief of research security — as acting chief of staff. A Sweeping New China Policy Emerged It is against this backdrop of leadership vacancies — an agency with neither a confirmed director nor a seated independent board — that NSF announced a sweeping new policy in July prohibiting U.S. scientists it funds from collaborating with nearly all Chinese research institutions and their employees. The policy, first reported by Science on July 10, 2026, and covered by South China Morning Post on July 14, 2026, marks a major reversal from NSF's earlier approach of weighing risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis. Under the new policy, NSF will bar interactions with employees of "restricted entities" — hundreds of major Chinese universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions identified on lists maintained by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Senior and key personnel on NSF awards will be prohibited from holding appointments at these institutions, receiving research support from them, or collaborating with them on NSF-funded work. The move replaces NSF's "Trusted Research Using Safeguards and Transparency" (TRUST) framework, introduced in 2024 to assess national security risks in grant proposals while still allowing collaboration to continue. At the time, Keiser — then NSF's chief of research security, now its acting chief of staff — argued that "we cannot continue to lead the world in science and innovation if we are fixated on achieving zero risk." That balancing act now appears to be over, at least with respect to China and other countries deemed national security threats: NSF's new guidance states plainly that "research security risk mitigation for NSF-funded projects involving these restricted entities is not sufficient." It is not publicly known whether the now-vacant National Science Board would have reviewed or weighed in on a policy of this scope had it still been seated — the board's precise role in this type of decision has not been reported. What is clear is that the policy was finalized during a period when NSF's normal channels of independent, external review were unusually thin. The shift also brings NSF in line with the Department of Defense, which tightened its own research security rules in January 2026, following a 2025 investigation by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party that found roughly 1,400 research papers published between June 2023 and June 2025 involved collaboration with Chinese entities — more than half of them affiliated with China's defense research and industrial base. A Pending Broader OMB Rule The restricted-entity list is not comprehensive. Tsinghua University, for instance, is not currently included — despite recently hiring away 2025 Nobel Chemistry laureate Omar Yaghi from UC Berkeley. A broader rule proposed separately by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would bar collaboration with entire "countries of concern," including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, rather than relying on institution-by-institution lists. Political and Diplomatic Reaction Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, praised the policy as "commendable and commonsense," saying it "will protect taxpayer-funded research and innovation," and called on other federal agencies to follow the Pentagon and NSF's lead. China's government pushed back. Liu Chang , a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said U.S.-China science and technology cooperation is "inherently mutually beneficial" and urged American institutions to promote rather than restrict such exchanges. Some U.S. scientists are similarly critical. Stanford physicist Peter Michelson , who last year organized a faculty petition against similar restrictions Moolenaar tried to insert into defense policy legislation, called the NSF policy "very damaging" to U.S. science. China policy expert Denis Simon , former executive vice chancellor of Duke Kunshan University, warned that the policy hands Moolenaar "an open playing field to put anybody on the [banned] list." Open Questions Much remains undefined, including what actually counts as a "collaboration." It is unclear whether the ban extends to casual conversations at conferences or to co-authored papers where researchers worked independently. NIH and NASA appear to already be restricting co-authorship with foreign scientists under similar reasoning, and Kevin Wozniak of the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) notes that NIH treats co-authorship as "a factor" — though not necessarily proof — of prohibited collaboration. What is Next NSF is accepting public comments on the policy and plans to finalize it in updated grantee instructions taking effect October 1, 2026 — the start of federal fiscal year 2027, when NSF says the policy will be fully implemented. Keiser and counterparts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science are scheduled to testify before Moolenaar's committee on July 15, 2026. Observers, including Simon, say they do not expect the hearing or public feedback to meaningfully alter the policy's course. Whether an eventually reconstituted National Science Board — or a confirmed director — will have any opportunity to revisit the policy remains an open question. National APA Museum Commission Opens Comments as Trump Administration Report Defends Chinese Exclusion Act The National Asian Pacific American Museum Commission is conducting a series of virtual information sessions to gather public input on the creation of a future national museum. These sessions are designed to engage the community, hear feedback, and discuss what a future museum could look like. They include Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Community Leaders , South Asian Community Leaders , and Students and Youth sessions. The Commission also encourages you to share your voice by submitting a public comment. Every story, perspective, and experience matters. Together, our voices can help ensure that the many histories, cultures, and contributions of Asian Pacific Americans are recognized and reflected in this important national effort. The Commission’s link to submit a public comment is located here: https://bit.ly/4gJhVct . Please submit your comment by July 31, 2026. The bipartisan Commission, established by Congress in 2022 (Public Law 117-140) and formally launched in June 2025, is completing its nationwide tour. It is entering its final stretch toward an October 2026 report to Congress and the President, which will lay out a comprehensive plan for establishing, funding, and maintaining the museum, including site selection and projected costs. Trump Administration Report Defends the Chinese Exclusion Act Separately, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a report on July 4 titled Saving America's Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage . The report is sharply critical of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, accusing it of portraying American history through a lens of "White supremacy, slavery, conquest, exclusion, hierarchy, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and systemic injustice." Notably, the report specifically defends the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — the first U.S. law to bar immigration based explicitly on race — against the museum's characterization that the law was racially motivated, criticizing the exhibit's accompanying text for portraying restrictive immigration laws as "a tool of White supremacy." The report emerged from an executive order Trump signed earlier in his term, which had already led to a broader review of Smithsonian exhibitions and operations. According to NPR on July 9, 2026, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch defended the institution's integrity in a memo to staff, emphasizing a commitment to "scholarship, nonpartisanship, independence, accuracy and integrity" in telling the fullness of America's story. The response from Asian American advocates has been swift and critical. Eunice Kwon of the Asian American Research Center at UC Berkeley called the report "a step backwards," noting that Congress formally and unanimously expressed regret for the Chinese Exclusion Act through House and Senate resolutions passed unanimously in 2011 and 2012. Kwon said the administration's effort to recast the law "as an economic dispute" while erasing the racial hostility and violence Chinese immigrants actually faced "is dangerous for our communities." Why This Matters Together Both developments intersect at a pivotal moment for how Asian Pacific American history is told at the federal level: as the Commission works to build the case for a dedicated national museum grounded in authentic, full storytelling — including the difficult chapters — the administration's Smithsonian report suggests a starkly different vision for how federally supported institutions should present that same history. ICE Shootings Mount as Trump Undercuts Reported DHS Vehicle-Stop Pause According to multiple media reports including AP News , Forbes , New York Times , TIME , and Washington Post , three men have died during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) encounters in just over a week — in Houston, Biddeford, Maine, and now Florida — even as President Donald Trump publicly contradicted reports that the agency had moved to suspend most vehicle stops, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s own account of events has shifted since. Separately, Minnesota prosecutors report a breakthrough in their long-stalled investigations into the January killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. What Happened This Month On July 7, an ICE officer fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo , a Mexican national who had lived in the U.S. for decades, as he drove his construction crew to a Houston job site. DHS said the officer opened fire after Salgado Araujo ignored commands and attempted to ram the officer with his vehicle, but at least two of the passengers in the van have disputed the federal agency's account through their attorney. Former Houston city councilmember Robert Gallegos said Salgado Araujo was "racially profiled" — a man who had raised three sons and run his own homebuilding business. Less than a week later, on July 13, an ICE agent shot and killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero , a 25-year-old Colombian national, after officers tried to stop a vehicle he was driving in Biddeford, Maine. DHS said the officer, "fearing for public safety," fired after Durán Guerrero attempted to flee in the vehicle. But that account shifted from what Sen. Angus King 's office initially relayed: King said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin first told him the officer opened fire because the driver tried to "use his vehicle as a weapon" — a materially different justification than "attempted to flee." King also said Mullin told him officers were serving an arrest warrant, but not for Durán Guerrero himself. Advocacy groups say Durán Guerrero had a wife and young daughter and was authorized to work in the U.S. Neither shooting involved agents wearing body cameras, despite then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem 's February pledge to "rapidly" deploy body cameras nationwide — a rollout that, per DHS, has now reached only about half of ICE field offices. Then on July 14, a third man died during an immigration encounter: a 28-year-old was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer in Florida while fleeing immigration and other federal officers. A Washington Post analysis published July 15 found that at least 17 motorists have been shot during immigration operations since the administration's enforcement ramp-up began — a scale considerably larger than the small number of high-profile cases that have drawn national attention. Separately, John Sandweg , who served as acting ICE director during the Obama administration, estimated roughly 18 traffic-stop shootings during the crackdown to date — a similar, independently-arrived-at figure. Trump Contradicts the Vehicle-Stop Pause — DHS Then Falls in Line Following the Houston and Maine shootings, ICE reportedly moved to suspend most vehicle stops — a change confirmed on the record when Sen. King's office said DHS itself had told them ICE was suspending traffic stops. But President Trump publicly contradicted that plan just a day later. In a social media post on July 15, Trump said ICE agents are "doing a GREAT job, one that has to be done," and insisted the agency must keep conducting stops to remove people he says were let into the country under the previous administration: "We CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!" Ending the practice, he wrote, would mean "playing right into the criminal's hands." Hours after Trump's post, DHS Secretary Mullin issued his own statement affirming that people in the country illegally would be "arrested and deported" — a response that, rather than clarifying the contradiction, appeared to align the department with Trump's position. As of this writing, it remains unclear whether ICE will formally reverse the suspension and resume most stops, or how the agency intends to reconcile Trump's public statement with the pause it reportedly ordered just a day earlier. Policing experts have long warned that shooting into moving vehicles is inherently dangerous and should almost always be avoided — a pattern critics say has repeated across these incidents, with officers confronting drivers and then citing the vehicle itself as the justification for using force. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said on July 14 she had urged Mullin "to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops," though she also cautioned on X that "it is important to remember that the work ICE does to protect our country goes far beyond immigration enforcement." Collins faces a competitive reelection race in Maine, where hundreds of protesters gathered at her office this week over the Durán Guerrero shooting. Separately, internal dissent has surfaced within ICE itself: senior officials have reportedly blamed Trump's demand for mass arrests for the wave of deadly shootings, with one official warning that officers "pushed to the breaking point" are being forced into fatal confrontations. The killings came days after Trump ordered an arrest surge that swept up more than 10,000 people in five days, with field leadership reportedly told the White House expected 2,000 detentions daily. ICE has said it faces growing resistance to home arrests, as advisers increasingly tell immigrants to stay inside unless agents produce a judicial warrant — a dynamic the agency says pushes officers toward other tactics, including vehicle stops. The Political Stakes The shootings arrive at a politically sensitive moment for the administration. Trump's approval rating on immigration recovered from 38% in February — in the wake of the Good and Pretti killings in Minneapolis — to 42% in June, according to Quinnipiac University polling, even as his overall approval sits at 38%. Immigration remains a relative strength for Trump compared to other issues, but the pattern of shootings has become a flashpoint in competitive races, including Collins's in Maine and several Democratic primaries where candidates are divided over how aggressively to respond. Minnesota Follow-Up: Evidence Turnover in the Good and Pretti Cases Separately, Minnesota prosecutors announced a long-sought breakthrough: the Trump administration turned over evidence long sought by state investigators, including previously withheld hard drives containing statements and body-camera video, as well as Good's badly damaged SUV. Lawyers for Good's family called the transfer "an important and meaningful step towards justice and accountability." Despite the handover, no criminal charges have been filed against the federal agents who shot and killed Good and Pretti. The two Customs and Border Protection officers who killed Pretti were placed on administrative leave shortly after the shooting, but no indictment or known disciplinary action has followed against them or against Jonathan Ross , the ICE agent who shot Good. What's Next Investigations remain ongoing in Houston, Biddeford, Florida, and the two Minneapolis cases, with state and federal authorities continuing to clash over jurisdiction and evidence access. Salgado Araujo's killing marked at least the 21st shooting by immigration agents since Trump's mass deportation campaign began in January 2025, according to the New York Times , as reported by Forbes — underscoring that these incidents form part of a broader, ongoing pattern rather than isolated events. Whether the vehicle-stop pause survives Trump's public pushback, and how DHS intends to reconcile its own reported suspension with the president's explicit demand to continue stops, remains unresolved. This continues to be a fast-developing story with a pattern of shifting federal accounts — DHS's description of the Maine shooting alone has changed at least twice, from "weaponized" to "attempted to flee," even as the administration now appears to be walking back the policy response to the shootings themselves. Readers should expect further developments as investigations proceed. 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 16, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #340 C100/Paul Cheung; More on Student Visas; Birthright Citizenship; AI Checks on Trump; + #340 C100/Paul Cheung; More on Student Visas; Birthright Citizenship; AI Checks on Trump; + In This Issue #340 · Introduction of C100 President Paul Cheung · Social Media Checks on Student Visa Applications · A Fractured Future for Birthright Citizenship · What Five AI Models Say About President Trump’s Claims · News and Activities for the Communities Introduction of C100 President Paul Cheung At the APA Justice monthly meeting on July 7, 2025, Paul Cheung 鄭文耀 , the new President of the Committee of 100 (C100), offered introductory remarks outlining his professional background and vision for the organization. With over two decades of experience in journalism and philanthropy, Paul previously led digital innovation at the Associated Press and the Miami Herald , and later focused on technology-driven equity initiatives at the Knight Foundation. He emphasized that his career has been defined by building strategic partnerships and using technology to dismantle systemic barriers—whether in journalism, misinformation, or civil rights. Paul sees strong alignment between C100’s mission and that of APA Justice and other advocacy organizations. In his view, defending AAPI rights requires more than passion—it demands strategy, cross-sector collaboration, and coordinated action. Reflecting on his past work covering civil rights and leading foundation programs, he stressed that legal victories alone are not enough unless they are paired with cultural and public narrative change. For C100, that means not only amplifying partners’ work but also helping to shift the broader conversation about Chinese American identity and inclusion.Acknowledging the evolving U.S.–China relationship, Paul pointed out that geopolitical tensions between the two countries will likely persist, regardless of administration. These tensions have direct consequences for Chinese Americans and other immigrant communities. As a result, C100 is rethinking how it approaches its advocacy—not simply by sharing how policy changes impact Asian Americans, but by demonstrating how they affect all Americans. He called for renewed efforts to uplift Chinese American contributions to U.S. history—from birthright citizenship to building the transcontinental railroad—as essential to understanding what is at stake if these communities are sidelined.Looking ahead, Paul emphasized C100’s commitment to working collaboratively with partners to inform and shape policy change. He highlighted the State of Chinese Americans research as one example of a tool that can support broader coalition efforts. Paul welcomed opportunities to meet with APA Justice participants individually to learn about their work and explore synergies. He concluded by thanking APA Justice and its leadership for hosting the conversation and expressed enthusiasm about building deeper partnerships to advance shared goals of equity, inclusion, and constructive dialogue.A video of Paul's talk is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sQHwSNRMfQ (3:30)A summary of the July 7 APA Justice monthly meeting is being prepared at this time. Social Media Checks on Student Visa Applications Author: Madeleine Gable, APA Justice Communications InternAccording to POLITICO , The Intercept , and other media sources, the State Department’s new student visa social media vetting process includes a list of 20 social media platforms. Applicants are asked to make their accounts public, a task that could prove difficult to accomplish as a quarter of platforms listed in the online application are now defunct.In late June, after a three-week suspension of student visa interviews, the State Department resumed processing with a stricter social media vetting protocol. The process applies to all foreign nationals who apply for F (academic students), M (vocational students), and J (exchange visitor) visa applicants, including applicants who have already been interviewed but have not been finally approved.The State Department directs consular officers to flag “applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism” and directs them to “consider the likelihood they would continue such activity in the United States.” It states that this screening will apply for both new and returning student visa applicants. Consular officers must take “detailed case notes” about their review of applicants’ online presences and “take screenshots to preserve the record against possible later alteration or loss of the information.”The online student visa application requires applicants to provide the usernames for “each social media platform you have used within the last five years” from a list of 20 services. However, many of the services listed have not been operational for years. Some of the listed, obsolete platforms include Vine, which closed in 2017; Google+, which stopped operating in 2019; and the dating site Twoo, which shut down in 2021. Since 2019, most visa applicants have been required to disclose their social media usernames. The Trump administration’s “expanded screening and vetting process” applies to F, M, and J visa applicants. Provided social media accounts will subsequently be checked for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.”Of the seven regional services listed, five are Chinese — Douban (豆瓣), Qzone (QQ空间), Sina Weibo (新浪微博), Tencent Weibo (腾讯微博), and Youku (优酷). Tencent Weibo, a microblogging service, shut down in 2020. The other two regional services are Ask.fm , a Latvian Q&A site, and VKontakte (VK), a Russian social networking, messaging, and entertainment app.Despite including five Chinese services, the list leaves out Tencent’s WeChat (腾讯微信), the most popular social media app in China. The list also does not include TikTok or Truth Social, President Trump’s own social media platform.According to Albert Fox Cahn , founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, “Now those who wanted to study in the U.S. to flee authoritarian governments abroad will have to make their social media public to those same governments to study here.” A Fractured Future for Birthright Citizenship Author: Madeleine Gable, APA Justice Communications InternOn June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled to allow President Donald Trump to continue to end the process of birthright citizenship in the U.S. Earlier this year, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, but it was challenged and temporarily halted by lower courts. In their recent ruling, the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, but it did limit the ability of individual judges in lower courts to block federal policies for the entire country. The Supreme Court is now the only court in the country that can block a presidential policy nationwide. Regarding the birthright citizenship executive order, the Supreme Court paused the order’s implementation for 30 days and returned pending lawsuits to lower courts to reassess the scope of relief. After the 30-day pause, the EO will take effect in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure.In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to limit nationwide injunctions, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance (CACA) issued a statement expressing “deep disappointment” that the ruling “significantly weakens the ability of civil rights organizations to protect communities from unconstitutional federal actions when swift nationwide relief is urgently needed.” CACA’s statement points out that advocates must now fight the same battle in multiple jurisdictions, delaying justice and sowing confusion nationwide. CACA urges Congress to restore the ability of lower courts to provide comprehensive relief and warns civil rights advocates to prepare for a more fractured legal landscape.Read the full CACA statement here . Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote) issued a similar press release, asserting that the EO attempts to “unilaterally change the 14th Amendment” and threatens to “erode a foundational principle of American identity,” the constitutional promise of equality and inclusion. Such a measure will have serious consequences for all immigrant communities.Read the full APIAVote press release here .U.S. Senator Tim Kaine , a former civil rights attorney, released the following statement:“President Trump’s attempt to curtail birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. is clearly unconstitutional. This is why every federal court until now had blocked the executive order from going into effect. But instead of making a straightforward determination on the constitutionality of the EO, the Supreme Court has colluded with the Trump Administration to curtail the Judiciary Branch’s own power to protect Americans from illegal actions by the Executive Branch, starting with undermining birthright citizenship. Now that Trump’s birthright citizenship order may go into effect in 30 days unless more lawsuits are filed, American hospitals and state and local governments will be in limbo about something as basic as issuing birth certificates. Parents of newborns will have to scramble to make sure that they have the paperwork to show their citizenship or immigration status, even as they prepare to welcome a baby into their families. Once again with this Administration, it’s nothing but uncertainty and fear.”Read Senator Tim Kaine's statement here . Chair Grace Meng of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) issued the following statement:“I am appalled by the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Trump administration push forward with its unconstitutional attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship. This reckless ruling opens the door to a future where states can decide who is an American citizen. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—a principle upheld by this very Court over a century ago. Instead of ruling on the merits of this case, the Court has chosen to undermine judges’ abilities to block the administration’s unlawful actions that will only lead to more chaos and division. While legal battles remain, CAPAC will continue to defend the Constitution and the bedrock principles that have allowed generations of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to call this country home. We will fight this executive order in every courtroom, in every state, across the country.”The American Immigration Council pointed out that after the 30-day pause, enforcement could vary widely by state or circuit, depending on how lower courts proceed. This raises the possibility of a patchwork legal system, where a child born to undocumented or immigrant parents might be a citizen in one state but not another. For example, a baby born to undocumented or immigrant parents in California or Maryland might still be issued a U.S. birth certificate and recognized as a citizen (because of ongoing litigation there). But possibly, a baby born the same day in Texas or Florida might not be recognized as a U.S. citizen — depending on how lower federal courts deal with the existing lawsuits and whether new lawsuits are filed. What Five AI Models Say About President Trump’s Claims On July 1, 2025, the Washington Post published an opinion by a team of senior scholars and researchers from the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, led by Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld . The team asked five leading AI systems—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity—to evaluate 20 regularly repeated claims made by President Donald Trump . All five models debunked 15 of the statements outright, and partially rejected most of the remaining ones. "Artificial intelligence discredited all the Trump claims we presented, fact-checking the president with startling accuracy and objective rigor," the opionion stated.For example, Trump’s assertions about tariffs—such as them not causing consumer price increases—were widely contradicted. ChatGPT noted that proposed tariffs "would likely raise consumer prices," while Grok estimated a 1–2.3% price increase per household. Similarly, his claim about the media being “dishonest” was challenged: Perplexity clarified that while there are errors, the U.S. media in general cannot be deemed “dishonest.” Another key contrast came with his statements on the Capitol riot and the 2020 election. ChatGPT asserted that celebrating the rioters "ignores the facts" and undermines democratic norms, while Gemini confirmed there was “no credible evidence” supporting claims of a stolen election The opinion emphasizes a stark dichotomy: either Trump’s claims are false, or the AI is deeply flawed. The models showed consistency and accuracy in their responses, offering a compelling challenge to his narrative—inviting readers to reflect on whether the problem lies with the politician or the technology. These 14 questions were identified in the opinion: Will Trump’s current tariff policies be inflationary? Is the U.S. being taken advantage of on trade by its international partners? Are Trump’s cryptocurrency investments a conflict of interest? Has the Department of Government Efficiency actually “found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud”? Is Harvard more antisemitic than other universities? Is Trump right that the media is “dishonest” or “tells lies”? Did the “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that aired in October distort the truth and damage Trump’s candidacy? Was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 President Joe Biden’s fault? Was the American economy the worst in its history under the Biden presidency? Was the Biden administration responsible for higher levels of inflation following the covid-19 pandemic and through 2024? Did 21 million illegal immigrants enter the United States [during the Biden administration]? And were many of them murderers, human traffickers, gang members, or other sorts of serious criminals? Were the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters who stormed the capitol “patriots” or “heroes”? Was the 2020 presidential election stolen from Trump? Is Trump the most dishonest president in U.S. history? Read the Washington Post opinion: https://bit.ly/44txfn3 News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2025/07/09 8th Annual Congressional Reception2025/07/10 C100 Conversations – “Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes” with David Ho2025/07/10 ACLU's Civil Rights in the Digital Age AI Summit2025/07/13 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/07/25-27 Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony 2025/07/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/07/29 C100 Conversations – “Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes” with Linda Chao Yang2025/08/02-07 2025 Joint Statistical Meetings2025/08/04 APA Justice Monthly MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Committee of 100 Conversations - "Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes" WHAT: Committee of 100 Conversations – “Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes” with David Ho WHEN: July 10, 2025, 6:00 pm ET WHERE: Webinar HOST: Committee of 100 Speaker : Dr. David Ho, Founding Scientific Director, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center Moderator : Peter Young, CEO and President of Young & Partners; Committee of 100 New York Regional Chair and Board Member DESCRIPTION: Dr. David Ho, pioneering AIDS research scientist, is a Professor of Medicine at Columbia University and the Founding Scientific Director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, whose elegant studies unraveled the dynamic nature of HIV replication in vivo and revolutionized our basic understanding of this horrific disease. This knowledge led him to champion combination antiretroviral therapy, which resulted in unprecedented control of HIV in patients. He will cover highlights and turning points in his career, his view of the factors that led to the innovations he pioneered, and the joys and challenges of scientific research in this country. He has received many awards, including Time Magazine Man of the Year. REGISTRATION : https://www.committee100.org/conversations-david-ho/ WHAT: Committee of 100 Conversations – “Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes” with Linda Tsao Yang WHEN: July 29, 2025, 6:00 pm ET WHERE: Webinar HOST: Committee of 100 Speaker : Linda Tsao Yang, Former U.S. Ambassador and first woman Executive Director appointed to Asian Development Bank Moderator : Calvin Tsao, Architect Principal at Tsao & McKown Architects and Committee of 100 Member DESCRIPTION: Linda Tsao Yang is a pioneer in the oversight of important financial institutions and the first woman and the first minority to represent the United States on the board of a multilateral financial institution. She served as U.S. Executive Director to the board of the Asian Development Bank in Manila, is Chair Emerita of the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA), was the first minority appointed to serve as California’s Savings and Loan Commissioner; and was also the first minority appointed to the board of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the United States.Throughout her career she has directed and driven the institutions she has chaired towards policies and practices that were more equitable and enduring, guided by good governance, transparent information disclosure, improved rules on participation and consultation, a robust policies on gender—all at a time when women were virtually absent from senior leadership, let alone executive directorships or boardrooms. REGISTRATION : https://www.committee100.org/conversations-linda-tsao-yang/ 3. AAAS Tracks Federal R&D Workforce On July 8, 2025, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) launched a tracker on the Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) of federal research and development (R&D) workers. The metric adds up full-time, part-time, and other work types to represent a standard 40-hour work week employee. The dashboard compiles the annually reported FTEs for key R&D intensive agencies and programs across the federal government. For more information, visit https://bit.ly/3Ijajht . # # # 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 July 9, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #110 01/30 Webinar on Gang Chen; 2/7 Monthly Meeting; Franklin Tao; Stop Anti-Asian Hate #110 01/30 Webinar on Gang Chen; 2/7 Monthly Meeting; Franklin Tao; Stop Anti-Asian Hate Back View PDF January 31, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter