A group of 177 Stanford University faculty members sent an open letter to US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, requesting that he terminate the China Initiative. The campaign became national and continued until the end of the China Initiative. More than 3,100 faculty, researchers, and scientists representing over 230 institutions from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico co-signed the letters. September 8, 2021 Table of Contents Overview The Winds of Freedom Website APA Justice Launched Parallel Campaign Final Tally of the National Campaign Links and References Overview On September 8, 2021, a group of 177 Stanford University faculty members from more than 40 departments, including 8 Nobel laureates, sent an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, requesting that he terminate the Department of Justice's "China Initiative." Three key flaws of the "China Initiative" were identified: The "China Initiative" disproportionally targets researchers of Chinese origin. In most of the "China Initiative" cases involving academics, the alleged crime has nothing to do with scientific espionage or intellectual property theft. The "China Initiative" is harming the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the future of the U.S. STEM workforce. While acknowledging the importance to U.S. of protecting both intellectual property and information that is essential to our national and economic security, the faculty members express their concerns of racial profiling and the harm to the United States' research and technology competitiveness. The initiative has led to a significant increase of investigations and prosecutions to researchers in academia, with most cases unrelated to intellectual property theft or scientific/economic espionage. The investigations have been disproportionately targeting researchers of Chinese origin. According to the letter, the chilling effect of the "China Initiative" is discouraging many scholars from coming to or staying in the U.S. Therefore, the "China Initiative" should be terminated. The Winds of Freedom Website The Stanford faculty members created a website to host the open letter and provide background and other related information . The name "Winds of Freedom" for the website comes from the Stanford motto "Die Luft der Freiheit weht" ("The Winds of Freedom Blow"). The website provides instructions on further action and tracks continuing developments. In particular, a qualified endorser is encouraged to consider a letter from faculty at his/her institution to either endorse the Stanford letter or send a similar letter. A copy of the Stanford letter is provided, along with a Google form template and some instructions which could be used to collect signatories. A qualified endorser is defined as a person with the current or former rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, lecturer, scholar, or administrator, who has a valid and verifiable .edu email address at an accredited university or similar educational institution in the United States. Titles and associations are for identification only; endorsers do not represent the university or institution. Where judgment on the status of an endorser may be needed, final decision will be made by the organizers of the campaign. Faculty members at Baylor College of Medicine, Princeton University, Southern Illinois University Faculty Senate, Temple University, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Irvine, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University would soon send their letters to Attorney General Garland. APA Justice Launched Parallel Campaign On October 14, 2021, APA Justice launched a campaign in collaboration with the Stanford co-organizers, calling for additional faculty members and qualified endorsers from universities and educational institutions across the U.S. to endorse the Stanford letter. Qualified endorsers might therefore join the campaign in two ways: Sign on to this nationwide campaign as individuals: https://bit.ly/EndorseStanfordLetter Follow the Instructions in the Winds of Freedom website on further action to endorse the Stanford letter as part of an institutional letter: https://bit.ly/38ZxKre On November 3, 2021, APA Justice submitted a letter to Attorney General (AG) Garland. It was co-signed by 841 faculty members, scholars, and administrators from 202 universities and educational institutions across all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The letter called for AG Garland to terminate the “China Initiative.” On November 24, 2021, APA Justice sent a letter to AG Garland and requested the inclusion of letters and comments from almost 2,000 faculty members, scholars, and administrators nationwide as part of the thorough review of the “China Initiative” being conducted by Assistant AG Matt Olsen. January 21, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to AGl Garland , adding another 357 co-signers to the nationwide campaign. The parallel campaigns continued until the end of the China Initiative in February 2022. Final Tally of the National Campaign On March 3, 2022, the records showed that 3,119 faculty members from 231 institutions co-signed letters to AG Garland, calling for the termination of the China Initiative. They covered all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In addition, 251 individuals endorsed the Stanford faculty letter to end the "China Initiative" at change.com . Jump to: Overview The Winds of Freedom Website APA Justice Launched Parallel Campaign Final Tally of the National Campaign A group of 177 Stanford University faculty members sent an open letter to US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, requesting that he terminate the China Initiative. The campaign became national and continued until the end of the China Initiative. More than 3,100 faculty, researchers, and scientists representing over 230 institutions from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico co-signed the letters. Previous Next 9. Stanford Faculty Starts Nationwide Campaign to End China Initiative

Qing Wang 王擎 Docket ID: 1:20-mj-09111 District Court, N.D. Ohio Date filed: May 12, 2020 Date ended: July 20, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Deletion from DOJ China Initiative Online Report 2021/09/15 Washington Post Report Cleveland Clinic Foundation Held Accountable in 2024 Links and References Overview On May 14, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of Dr. Qing Wang as a former Cleveland Clinic employee and a Chinese “Thousand Talents” participant. The case was listed under the China Initiative. Dr. Wang was charged with false claims and wire fraud related to more than $3.6 million in grant funding that he and his research group received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cleveland Clinic fired Dr. Wang the same day he was arrested. Dr. Wang was born in China, began his work at the Cleveland Clinic in 1997 and became a U.S. citizen in 2005. He specialized in breakthroughs in heart disease at the Lerner Institute of the Cleveland Clinic—one of the world’s leading research centers. On July 15, 2021, DOJ moved to dismiss its case against Dr. Qing Wang. In a statement, the DOJ explained, "The United States Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, against Qing Wang, a.k.a. Kenneth Wang. The Office has made this decision after a review of the case and will decline further comment at this time." The Cleveland Clinic also released a statement saying, “We have fully cooperated with federal law enforcement’s investigation into this matter. Dr. Wang’s employment was terminated following an internal review which revealed violations of Cleveland Clinic and National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies.” On July 20, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. ordered the dismissal of Dr. Wang’s case. After DOJ made the motion to dismiss Dr. Wang’s case, it proceeded to delete it from its online report on the China Initiative – a practice that was continued unannounced and without explanation for several months until November 2021 when APA Justice reported it to the Attorney General and MIT Technology Review began to build a database on the online report. On September 15, 2021, the Washington Post published an interview with Dr. Wang, who later restarted his research career at China’s Huazhong University of Science and Technology. On June 21, 2024, Science reported that DOJ reached a settlement with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), requiring CCF to pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations of mismanagement involving three NIH grants. This settlement sends a clear message that research institutions will be held accountable for failing to adequately monitor outside support provided to their faculty. Defense attorney for Dr. Wang maintained that his client had followed the rules and voluntarily disclosed his Chinese support. “He told them everything—both NIH and CCF.” The CCF settlement, he added, simply confirmed Dr. Wang’s innocence. Deletion from DOJ China Initiative Online Report The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintained an online report on China Initiative cases since the initiative's launch in November 2018, including Dr. Qing Wang's case. However, after the DOJ moved to dismiss Dr. Wang’s case, DOJ deleted his case from the online report. This unannounced practice of removing dismissed or acquitted cases continued for several months without explanation. On November 24, 2021, APA Justice reported the removal of about 20 cases from its online China Initiative report to Attorney General Merrick Garland. MIT Technology Review brought this practice to light with a published investigative report on December 2, 2021. DOJ ceased to update its online report on November 19, 2021. The end of the China Initiative was formally announced on February 23, 2022. 2021/09/15 Washington Post Report According to the Washington Post on September 15, 2021, in the weeks leading up to his arrest, Dr. Qing Wang was interviewed by the Cleveland Clinic and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about his grants. He got no indication he was under criminal suspicion. “I was shocked,” he said about his early morning arrest in May 2020. “At that moment,” he said, “I felt that my life was over.” Dr. Wang was the lead investigator on a research project on the genetics of cardiovascular disease, funded by more than $3.6 million in NIH grants. He allegedly neglected to disclose to NIH that even as he was a professor at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner College of Medicine, he was a beneficiary of the Thousand Talents Program, through which the Chinese government recruits academics in the West whose expertise might benefit Beijing. In an affidavit , FBI agent John Matthews alleged that through the program, Dr. Wang was made dean of the College of Life Sciences at Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The agent said Wang concealed receiving Chinese government grants totaling $480,000 for research that overlapped with his U.S.-funded work. In particular, Matthews alleged, citing NIH information, “the families used in both studies were mostly the same.” Dr. Wang’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, disputed the allegations, saying Wang disclosed his research in China as part of the NIH application and did not use American families for the Chinese study. Dr. Wang also disclosed to the Cleveland Clinic that he was affiliated with the talent program, said Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at Arent Fox in Washington. “Ultimately this came down to whether the grant forms were filled out correctly,” Zeidenberg said. “The information was all there. It just wasn’t where the NIH was looking.” Over 34 years of research in the United States, including 21 at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Wang led a team that discovered the first gene for Brugada syndrome, a disorder causing irregular heart rhythm, which can be fatal — especially in young people. He wanted to stay in the United States because it “has the best environment for science in this area,” and because he thought he would have the most impact in a country where heart disease is the leading cause of death. The arrest terrified Dr. Wang, his wife, Qiuyun Chen, and their two daughters. “We worked so hard day and night just trying to understand how to prevent human disease,” said Chen, who also came to the United States in 1986 to study and was a member of Dr. Wang’s Cleveland Clinic research team. “And you never think this would be criminal.” Cleveland Clinic Foundation Held Accountable in 2024 According to a report by Science on June 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled that research institutions will be held accountable for oversight failures. In a settlement reached on May 17, 2024, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) agreed to pay $7.6 million to resolve allegations of mismanaging three National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. As part of the settlement, a senior CCF administrator must personally attest to the accuracy of all NIH submissions, a significant responsibility. The case began in 2018 when NIH investigated CCF cardiovascular geneticist Dr. Qing Wang, based on an FBI list of scientists allegedly receiving Chinese funding. Following a CCF investigation, NIH suspended Dr. Wang’s $2.8 million grant in April 2020, and CCF terminated his employment. Dr. Wang was arrested in May 2020 under the China Initiative but was later cleared when the DOJ dropped the charges in July 2021 without explanation. Dr. Wang’s lawyer maintained that Dr. Wang had disclosed all necessary information to NIH and CCF, asserting his client's innocence. The CCF settlement follows earlier civil settlements with the Van Andel Institute, where scientists were not criminally charged, amounting to $6.6 million in 2019 and 2021. Previous Item Next Item

Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 Docket ID: 2:17-cv-02132 District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Date filed: May 10, 2017 Date ended: Professor Xi Files Appeal to Reinstate Damage Claims Against FBI 2023/06/08 TechDirt: Appeals Court Awards Half A Win To Professor Wrongfully Arrested For Sharing ‘Secret’ Tech With Chinese Entities 2023/05/26 星島日報: 任職天普被誣指中國間諜 華裔教授郗小星獲准告FBI 2023/05/25 NBC News: After being wrongfully accused of spying for China, professor wins appeal to sue the government 2023/05/24 ACLU: ACLU Applauds Court For Allowing Case Challenging FBI’s Wrongful Prosecution of Chinese American Physics Professor To Move Forward Bloomberg Law: Temple Professor’s Claims Revived Over Wrongful Spying Arrest 2022/09/21 Inside Higher Ed: After the China Initiative: Seeking Accountability 2022/09/20 NBC News: A professor falsely accused of spying for China describes the toll it's taken on his family 2022/09/16 Temple News: Temple physics professor defends lawsuit against FBI agent 2022/09/15 Courthouse News Service: Appeals court weighs case over China-born physicist’s wrongful espionage charges 2022/09/14 Oral arguments: https://bit.ly/3dbBD29 (audio 57:09) WHYY: Temple professor continues long legal journey to sue FBI for wrongful prosecution Philadelphia Inquirer: Temple professor falsely accused of spying for China urges court to revive his suit against the FBI Advancing Justice | AAJC: Professor Xiaoxing Xi, Civil Rights Advocates Argue for Freedom from Government Discrimination and Surveillance in Third Circuit Court Asian American Scholar Forum: Asian American Scholar Forum Calls for Justice for Dr. Xiaoxing Xi Ahead of Third Circuit Oral Arguments AsAmNews: Professor accused of spying for China asks court to revisit suit against FBI 2022/02/20 The Daily Campus: SMU AAPASA Denounces FBI’s Racial Targeting of Asian Academics 2022/02/17 AAUP: The AAUP Joins Movement Seeking Justice For Professor Xiaoxing Xi 2022/02/15 Defending Rights & Dissent: DRAD joins amicus brief in Xi v. Haugen; calls on US government to stop discriminating against Asian Americans & immigrants 2022/02/14 American Physical Society: Brief of Amici Curiae American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Statistical Association, American Geophysical Union, and Gerontological Society of America in Support of Appellants Advancing Justice | AAJC: Advancing Justice - AAJC and Advancing Justice - ALC Amicus Brief in Support of Professor Xiaoxing Xi 2022/02/11 Institute for Justice: Institute for Justice Amicus Brief in support of Professor Xiaoxing Xi 2022/02/10 The Davis Vanguard: Naturalized U.S. Citizen Files Appeal Following Dismissal of Claims Against U.S. Gov’t 2022/02/09 The Daily Pennsylvanian: Temple University Professor Xiaoxing Xi seeks reinstatement of lawsuit against FBI Temple News: Temple professor asks court to reinstate lawsuit against U.S. government 2022/02/07 AP: Temple prof seeks reinstatement of damage claims against FBI 2021/09/24 ACLU: Xi v. Haugen - Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal 2021/04/02 ACLU: A Chinese American Scientist and His Family Are Battling the FBI’s Profiling in Court ACLU: Federal Court Dismisses Claims in Chinese American Professor’s Lawsuit Challenging FBI’s Baseless Arrest and Prosecution 2018/04/09 ACLU: Xi V. Haugen – Challenge to Warrentless Surveillance Previous Item Next Item

Programs and Initiatives Explore ways to get involved. Click on a program below to learn more about efforts to combat racial profiling and unfair government policies, or find them in the menu above. Advocacy Read More Advocacy for justice and fairness: our work with policy makers to push for AAPI rights and to ensure justice for AAPI academics and scientists. Community Networking Read More A network giving greater resources and a more assertive voice to the Asian American community. History & Education Read More Learn more about important historical events and cases involving Asian American people and culture. Yellow Whistle Campagn Read More Our partnership with the Yellow Whistle Project to promote self-protection and solidarity against discrimination and violence.

Lin Yang Previous Item Next Item

Racial Profiling Alien Land Bills Alien land bills, also known as alien land laws upon passage, have historically restricted the landownership and property rights of immigrants, particularly those of Asian descent. They are being revived today. Dive into the issue Latest developments More News Research Grant Politicization Research grants to organizations and academics with Chinese ties have become politicized, posing a threat to apolitical, peer-reviewed science. Learn More Chinese Exclusion Act The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, which Iowa Congressman John Kasson described as "one of the most vulgar forms of barbarism." Learn More Learn more about related issues Featured: Interactive map Tracking Alien Land Bills The Committee of 100 launched an alien land bill tracker and a companion interactive map on December 15, 2023. This database tracks and maps state and federal bills that target property ownership by non-citizens, particularly from countries like China. These resources are updated four times a year in March, July, October, and December. Committee of 100: 2024 Alien Land Bill Tracker and Map Committee of 100: 2023 Alien Land Bill Tracker and Map In early 2023, APA Justice launched an interactive Alien Land Bill tracker with an interactive map to monitor restrictive state land ownership legislation. Following collaborative efforts, the Committee of 100 launched its own Alien Land Bill tracker and interactive map on December 15, 2023. Subsequently, APA Justice discontinued updates to its original tracker and map. 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 had passed and signed into state law; some have died; others were still pending. Original state-by-state links to the legislations and map were provided as community resources. They were 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. California's 1913 Alien Land Law During the APA Justice monthly meeting on April 3, 2023, Paula Madison, businesswoman and retired executive from NBCUniversal, proposed a proactive and assertive national media alert network for the Asian American community. The idea was prompted by the challenge of Texas Senate Bill 147 (SB147) and the revival of discriminatory alien land bills. While this bill was introduced in Texas, the implications nationally and globally were huge. It was decided that a roundtable will be convened to further discuss the development and implementation of the concept and strategies for the near term and the longer term. Following a discussion with the Asian American Journalists Association on April 10, 2023, the virtual Inaugural Roundtable was hosted by APA Justice on April 17, 2023. April 2023 Meeting Apr. 3rd 2023 National Media Network Read More According to the Equal Justice Initiative , on May 3, 1913, California enacted the Alien Land Law, barring Asian immigrants from owning land. California tightened the law further in 1920 and 1923, barring the leasing of land and land ownership by American-born children of Asian immigrant parents or by corporations controlled by Asian immigrants. The 1913 California Alien Land Law was one of the earliest and most influential U.S. laws specifically restricting Asian immigrants' land ownership rights. Anti-Asian land restrictions had been developing, especially on the West Coast, influenced by widespread anti-Asian sentiment. California's law became a model for similar legislation in other states. California did not stand alone. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming all enacted discriminatory laws restricting Asians’ rights to hold land in America. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed various versions of the discriminatory land laws—and upheld every single one. Most of these discriminatory state laws remained in place until the 1950s, and some even longer. California's 1913 Alien Land Law According to the Equal Justice Initiative , on May 3, 1913, California enacted the Alien Land Law, barring Asian immigrants from owning land. California tightened the law further in 1920 and 1923, barring the leasing of land and land ownership by American-born children of Asian immigrant parents or by corporations controlled by Asian immigrants. The 1913 California Alien Land Law was one of the earliest and most influential U.S. laws specifically restricting Asian immigrants' land ownership rights. Anti-Asian land restrictions had been developing, especially on the West Coast, influenced by widespread anti-Asian sentiment. California's law became a model for similar legislation in other states. California did not stand alone. Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming all enacted discriminatory laws restricting Asians’ rights to hold land in America. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed various versions of the discriminatory land laws—and upheld every single one. Most of these discriminatory state laws remained in place until the 1950s, and some even longer.

On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Anming Hu of all charges in his indictment. September 9, 2021 On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Anming Hu of all charges in his indictment. Professor Hu is the first academic to go to trial under the "China Initiative." Read more about the latest developments and background of Professor Hu's case at Anming Hu . On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Anming Hu of all charges in his indictment. Previous Next Professor Anming Hu Acquitted

Racial Profiling Racial profiling refers to the act of targeting individuals or groups based on their race or ethnicity for law enforcement scrutiny, investigation, or surveillance. Asian Americans have historically been subjected to racial profiling and discrimination, despite being a diverse group with various ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and histories. More News Recent developments Issues of focus China Initiative Follow recent news on the China Initiative and its impacted individuals. Politicization of Research Grants Learn about the politicization of the coronavirus research grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. Stereotype An over-generalized belief about a particular category of people Implicit Bias Attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner Social Stigma Disapproval of, or discrimination against, a person based on perceivable social characteristics that serve to distinguish them from other members of a society Prejudice Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment Discrimination The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things Racial Profiling The use of race, ethnicity or national origin as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense Read more about Continuing Developments in racial profiling of Asian Americans here. Profiling of Asian Americans The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers beginning in 1882. Subsequent amendments expanded the exclusion to all Asians. It was one of the most explicitly discriminatory laws based on race and national origin in U.S. history. The Chinese Exclusion Act and its amendments were not repealed until 1943. More on the Chinese Exclusion Act. During the Second World War, about 120,000 Japanese were interned under Executive Order 9066, about two thirds of them were native-born American citizens. Most of them were uprooted from their homes in the West Coast and sent to relocation centers for suspicion of disloyalty to the United States. In combination with these historical and stereotypical backgrounds, the current state of profiling of Chinese Americans is further entrenched by: Modern technology such as artifical intelligence and robotics is a major area of international competition for human talent. It also allows convenient collection of large amount of data and massive surveillance beyond the traditional boundaries, eroding civil liberties and privacy of all Americans and helping to target Asian Americans. Economic espionage and trade secrets became part of the expanded scope of national security after the 9/11 attacks. Athough no person of Chinese descent is known to have participated in acts of terrorism, Chinese Americans became subjects of surveillance and profiling as economic spies and insider threats. The rapid rise of China as an economic power in the past decades and its ambitious long-term development programs have become a threat to the U.S., both real and perceived. This threat is further promoted actively by the traditional military-industrial complex and the growing security-industrial complex. Engage China, or Confront it? The national security strategy issued in late 2017 officially declared China to be a competitive rival to the U.S. Implementation of the strategy has followed with intensified information campaigns and additional legislations and regulations that also enable the profiling practice, such as the "whole-of-society" approach advocated by FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Department of Justice China Initiative when anti-immigrant rhetoric are also rising. "Modern federal criminal laws have exploded in number and became impossibly broad and vague," according to criminal defense and civil liberties litigator Harvey Silverglate in his book titled "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Without adequate transparency, oversight, and accountability, "prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any innocent individuals, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior." In total or in part, these factors have led innocent Asian Americans to recent persecutions as explicit targets, collateral damage, and scapegoats in the context of national security. Racial profiling is legally and morally wrong. 2. A Growing Pattern Government mistakes in espionage cases are rare. However, prior to Professor Xi's wrongful prosecution against Professor Xi, Sherry Chen, Guiqing Cao and Shuyi Li were also accused of spying for China in two separate cases. Their cases were all dropped within a two-year period. These innocent Chinese American scientists work in the academia, federal government, and private industry. Subsequent to 2015, there have been additional prosecutions of Chinese American scientists that collapsed, such as a former Michigan State University professor and two Tulane University professors. More details here . 3. Failure of Checks and Balances As the pattern of profiling against innocent Chinese American scientists began to emerge and pile up, many began to raise questions to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether race, ethnicity and national origin have played a role in their investigations and prosecutions. Those that spoke out include, but are not limited to: 42 members of the U.S. Congress The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Delaware U.S. Senators and Congressman Prominent scientists, engineers and professors Civil rights organizations Despite these and many other appeals being well-documented, the system of checks and balances failed to account for the public concerns. 4. Labels and Misinformation The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) deny that they target Asian Americans based on race, ethnicity or national origin. However, actions such as the use of code names and provocative messages by senior government officials tend to suggest otherwise. On February 13, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate hearing that Chinese professors, scientists, students across basically every discipline are "nontraditional collectors" spying for China. According to a media report , FBI and intelligence agencies have urged universities to surveil Chinese students and scholars. The Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats declared in a July 2018 public forum: "Don't send your kids here!", "Don't put your people on our labs!", and "You cannot steal our secrets!" In its publicity campaign on "China: The Risk to Academia ," the FBI highlights the "annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets" as $225 - $600 Billion. As the American Physical Society pointed out , the “$225 - $600 Billion” figure "turns out to be primarily based on a generic GDP multiplier that would apply to any country at any time – it has no specific bearing on current circumstances with China or academia, as the title of the document unfortunately suggests." "Thousand Grains of Sand" by FBI official in 1999 "Fifth Column" during World War II "Communist Sympathizer" during the Red Scare Irresponsible code names have been used historically to stigmatize Asian Americans as "perpetual foreigners ," insinuating that they are not to be distrusted and their loyalty is always questioned, no matter how many generations they have lived in the U.S. Prior to FBI Director Wray coining the term "nontraditional collectors ," another FBI official advanced the "thousand grains of sand " and "mosaic " theories about Chinese in America when Dr. Wen Ho Lee was being persecuted about two decades ago. During World War II, Japanese persons in the West Coast were portrayed as the "fifth column ." Dr. Qian Xuesen and others were labeled "communist sympathizers " during the Red Scare in the 1950s. 5. Shifting Grounds and Double Standards In recent years, the FBI shifted its targets to those associated with China's talent recruitment programs, including the Thousand Talent Program. However, government recruitment program is nothing new. Japan has The World Premier International Center Initiative; the United Kingdom has the Earnest Rutherford Fund; Canada has the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program; Singapore has RIE2020; Israel has I-CORE; and France has the "Make Our Planet Great Again" Initiative. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. As long as the rules are followed, it is perfectly legitimate for academics to pursue opportuntities in the talent recruitment programs. In 2015, the former head of the Beijing office for the National Science Foundation (NSF) said that U.S. scientists can access world-class facilities, uniqiue geographic sites, and expertise in a growing number of fields by coolabroating with Chinese colleagues. In additon, as ties are built with Chinese funding agencies, NSF funding can be leveraged in coordinated partnerships on topics that are of interest to both countries. In 2014, the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai and quoted Louis Pasteur, "Science knows no country because knowledge belongs to humanity," as the topic of his speech. Indeed, cancer knows no country. Coronavirus knows no country. According to the book titled "The Great Influenza," in the height of World War I and the influenze epidemic, a researcher found an effective way to fight the virus. Both the military officials and the leading scientists supported the decision to publish the research results, even if it would help the enemies, the Germans, on the battlefields. 6. "Researching While Chinese" Some say that some Chinese persons did do something wrong. However, it is not the right question to ask. For example, Sandra Bland , an African American woman, was stopped by a state trooper for signaling while making a traffic turn. Was it improper? It certainly was, but nobody should go to jail and died for it. The same can be said for Samuel DuBose for missing a front license plate. Or Philando Castile for a broken tail light. They all died for offenses they would not have had had they not been African Americans. Similarly, the right question we should ask is whether it is okay for the entire group of Chinese professors, scientists, and students being singled out for targeting as suspected non-traditional collectors for China, or Chinese spies. That is racial profiling. That is wrong. Proud to be a Chinese American Xiaoxing Xi I was jogging on the National Mall and along Pennsylvania Avenue this morning. As the sun came out behind the iconic landmarks, my heart welled up with pride of being a Chinese American. I ran by the Washington Monument. It is the ideal that “all men are created equal” the Founding Father fought for that has attracted me and many others to become an American citizen. I passed by the Lincoln Memorial. Abraham Lincoln gave his life to preserve the Union and abolish a system that treated people differently based on their races. Running past the Capitol Steps, my appreciation became so clear that in this country, people’s voice can be heard through a democratic process. I jogged in front of the FBI building. I commend the men and women who devote themselves to the protection of our country. In my case, however, they have used their might against an innocent citizen. What do these all mean to me? We need to get involved in the democratic process. If we see a bad policy, a bad practice, that hurt our country, we need to speak out and let our voice be heard. That we have the right to do so is what this country is so great about. As a proud citizen, I pledge to do my part. 7. Criminalizing Fundamental Research Threatens U.S. Leadership There is no evidence to support the government's crackdown of open scientific exchanges with China as they are mostly on basic research. The national policy governing federally-funded research has been National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189). Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, it defines fundamental research as basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community. It states that it is the policy of this administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. If national security requires control, then classify the research. Since the principle of freedom to publish and disseminate results is so fundamental to U.S. universities that many of them do not accept funding that restricts their faculty from publishing and disseminating research results. For example, the Princeton University policy says the University will not, as a matter of policy, accept any contracts or grants for the support of classified research. However, in its publicity campaign document, the FBI says, "Even if the technologies and their applications are not currently classified, they could be in the future." The "thousand grains of sand" and "mosaic" theories are widely held by the intelligence community - a collection of unclassified documents would create a classified document. According to these theories, while the Russians would steal the one classified document, the Chinese steals all the unclassified documents and put them together. So Chinese professors, scientists, and students are suspected of stealing secrets anyway, even when they are conducting fundamental research. On November 18, 2019, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a staff report which makes a number of recommendations. Recommendation 11 says, "The administration should consider updating NSDD-189 and implement additional, limited restrictions on U.S. government funded fundamental research... Federal agencies must not only combat illegal transfers of controlled or classified research, but assess whether openly sharing some types of fundamental research is in the nation's interest." If the scientific community does not speak up, the day it can freely publish fundamental research and to openly discuss among colleagues may be numbered. This push for restrictions of open fundamental research reflects a total lack of understanding about what has made America the world leader in science and technology in the first place. In the book titled "Technology and National Security: Maintaining America's Edge," writer and historian Walter Isaacson wrote a chapter on The Source of America's Innovation Edge. He pointed out that the triangular partnership between government, industry, and academia created an ecosystem that helped produce the technological revolution after World War II. Each partner has its unique functions, and universities are where free and open research is conducted. If the free and open environment is lost and turned into national laboratories, American competitiveness in science and technology will be stifled. Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Deutch also wrote in the same book, "The risk of loss [of technology to China] is minor compared to the losses that will be incurred by restricting inquiry on university campuses." In other words, in the name of protecting America's research integrity, the policies that restrict open research on university campuses are in fact destroying America's leadership in science and technology. The Department of Justice denies that it makes decisions based on race, ethnicity or national origin. Harvard University Chemistry Department Chair Dr. Charles Lieber is cited as an example, but this is precisely what Professor Xi has been warning. Anyone who has academic collaboration with Chinese colleagues can become a target of the FBI. One does not have to be Chinese. According to a U.S. attorney, academic collaborations with China is "by definition conveying sensitive information to the Chinese." Once you are targeted, everything is under the microscope. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189) "'Fundamental research' means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons." It is the policy of this Administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. It is also the product of this Administration that, where national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally-funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities, and laboratories is classification. 8. Balance Between Open Science and Security On December 11, 2019, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released the JASON report on Fundamental Research Security. JASON is an independent group of elite scientists which advises the U.S. government on matters of science and technology. JASON was briefed by representatives of the intelligence community and law enforcement during the study. They had access to all the available classified information In the end, the JASON report says in its findings the scale and scope of the [foreign influence by the Chinese government] remain poorly defined. It recommends that NSF should support reaffirmation of the principles of NSDD-189, which make clear that fundamental research should remain unrestricted to the fullest extent possible. It also says failure to disclose commitments and actual potential conflicts of interest should be investigated and adjudicated by the relevant office of NSF and by universities as presumptive violations of research integrity, with consequences similar to those currently in place for scientific misconduct. Not by the FBI. Not by throwing them into jail. In Professor Xi opinion, the scientific community should rally around the JASON report. It is well balanced, and it provides a blueprint of the proper response for the U.S. government for the perceived threats of the Chinese government to fundamental research. 1. Wrongful Persecution Born in China, Professor Xi was among the first students to attend college after the Cultural Revolution in China. He received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Peking University and Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science, in 1987. After several years of research at the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center, Germany, he came to the U.S. and worked for Bell Communication Research/Rutgers University and University of Maryland before joining the Physics faculty at Penn State University in 1995. He moved to Temple University in 2009. On May 19, 2015, he was informed that he would be appointed permanent Chair of the Physics Department. Two days later on May 21, 2015 when the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus was convening a press conference to express concerns about racial profiling in the case of Sherry Chen, Professor Xi was sensationally arrested in the wee hours of the morning. Media reports the following day quoted the Department of Justice that Professor Xi was a "Chinese spy" selling sensitive information to China. Four charges were subsequently made, all of them based on intercepted emails. Professor Xi and his lawyer refuted point-by-point that the allegations were totally false. In particular, five top experts, including one whose trade secrets were allegedly stolen, examined the emails and provided affidavits to support Professor Xi's defense that he did not share or sell proprietary information to China. In fact, the fundamental research results were readily available in the Internet. Professor Xi and his lawyer raised the question of how publicly available technology can be "stolen" and alleged to be a criminal act. On September 11, 2015, DOJ dropped all charges against Professor Xi without explanation or responding to his questions. However, irreparable damage to his finances, career, reputation and his family had already been made. Profiling Today Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (1921-1989) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 . As the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, Sakharov was awarded the Peace Prize for "his opposition to the abuse of power and his work for human rights." Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has awarded the Andrei Sakharov Prize every second year to recipients for "outstanding leadership and/or achievements of scientists in upholding human rights." Professor Xiaoxing Xi (郗小星) of Temple University is a 2020 recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize. He is himself a victim of racial profiling . Since the wrongful prosecution against him was dropped in 2015, Professor Xi has been tirelessly speaking up across the nation to stop the injustice of racial profiling, defend openness in university campuses, and protect American competitiveness in science and technology. Professor Xi was scheduled to receive the Andrei Sakharov Prize on March 4, 2020. The event was cancelled due to concerns about the coronavirus. Professor Xi recorded his prepared presentation in a 32-minute video. It provides compelling facts and arguments that cover not only the wrongful prosecution against him, but also the government's abuse of authority at the expense of American competitiveness and leadership by criminalizing fundamental research. This page is dedicated to communicate and expand on Professor Xi's message on racial profiling, which has already infected academia, government, private industry, and other segments of American society. It provides a synopsis of profiling today.

Multiple media reports the China Initiative as unraveling and out of control after cases that were sensationally publicized early on by the government began to be dismissed or acquitted in courts rapidly in a span of several months. September 15, 2021 Table of Contents Overview “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” Links and References Overview Over a two-day period in July 2021, five similar prosecutions against Chinese researchers were summarily dropped without explanation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). They were suspected to belong to the Chinese military and might be stealing American industrial secrets under the China Initiative, but were not charged for espionage. A week earlier, DOJ dismissed charges, also without explanation, against Qing Wang, a Chinese American researcher in Cleveland, who was accused under the China Initiative of failing to disclose his affiliation with a Chinese university from which he had received funding. Less than two months later in September, a federal judge acquitted Anming Hu, a Chinese Canadian engineering professor in Tennessee, of charges stemming from allegations under the China Initiative that he hid his joint academic appointment in China in obtaining research funding from NASA. Having a mistrial and six cases dismissed within several weeks “is extraordinary,” a former federal prosecutor said. “It really undermines the credibility of the [China] initiative.” These high-profile cases raise the question of whether the China Initiative designed to address a national security threat posed by the Chinese government has strayed, targeting researchers on lesser allegations of fraud without compelling evidence that they pose a danger to the United States. “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” On September 15, 2021, the Washington Post published on its front page As cases fail, security initiative's aim is questioned . To federal investigators, Qing Wang was an example of China’s growing effort to co-opt scientists in the United States — part of a vast campaign to steal American secrets and technology. But a string of dismissed cases including Wang's has amplified concerns among some lawmakers and activists about whether prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing researchers of Chinese descent. The issue goes beyond whether the government is bringing prosecutions it can win. Critics say the cases raise the question of whether a program designed to address a national security threat posed by the Chinese government has strayed, targeting researchers on lesser allegations of fraud without compelling evidence that they pose a danger to the United States. In many of the cases, the Justice Department is “using language akin to spycraft, but that’s not substantiated by the charges they are bringing,” said George P. Varghese, a former federal prosecutor in Boston. For the 20 or so academics prosecuted in the past three years and linked to the China Initiative, most charges related to lack of candor — making false statements or failing to disclose ties to Chinese institutions — rather than intent to spy. All but a few of the researchers are of Chinese descent. John Hemann, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, worked the flagship China Initiative case: the 2018 indictment of Chinese state-owned Fujian Jinhua. He said the department was successfully prosecuting China-related economic espionage cases long before the China Initiative. But pressure to demonstrate the initiative’s success — to “show statistics,” he said, “has caused a program focused on the Chinese government to morph into a people-of-Chinese-descent initiative,’’ including Chinese-born scientists working in the United States. “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” On September 16, 2021, LA Times published Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling . The article covered recently dropped "China Initiative" cases including visiting UCLA researcher Lei Guan and University of Tennessee Professor Anming Hu. Michael German, a former FBI agent who serves as a fellow for the Brennan Center for Justice, said the recent dismissals revealed how weak many of the cases were. “Obviously, the FBI and Justice Department are under pressure to produce indictments against people with a so-called ‘nexus to China’ to match the political rhetoric sensationalizing the espionage threat from the Chinese government,” he said. “Even FBI analysts appear to have felt the investigators’ effort to connect these defendants to the Chinese military was overwrought.” Although much remains unknown about the Trump-era campaign, it appears that a major problem was its decision to focus on Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans working in major U.S. research universities. Not only did that approach fail to turn up persuasive evidence of spying, but the emphasis on going after a small number of individuals for academic fraud seemed too small-scale to make a dent in a purportedly massive problem. Moreover, the FBI’s tactics struck many Asian Americans as heavy-handed and discriminatory. The campaign came at a time when Asian Americans across the country were under attack with hate crimes. Defending the program, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray warned that Beijing, in its effort to overtake the U.S. economy, had resorted to industrial espionage using “non-traditional collectors” such as researchers and graduate students. He told a China Initiative conference in 2020 that the FBI had about 1,000 investigations involving China’s attempt to steal U.S.-based technology. In April 2021, the director testified before Congress that the bureau had about 2,000 open cases of economic espionage that “tie back to the Chinese government,” representing a 1,300% increase over the last few years. But in the nearly three years since the program’s launch, the China Initiative has brought just 12 prosecutions of people at academic institutions and has won convictions of four individuals. In none of those four cases did the government provide evidence of economic espionage or theft of trade secrets or intellectual property. “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” On September 17, 2021, the Editor-in-Chief of The Diplomat published Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course ? The comprehensive article raised the question: After a resounding legal defeat, will the Justice Department change stance on the controversial program? The initiative potentially covers a lot of ground, making it hard at times to know what officially counts as part of the "China Initiative." “No one has been able to explain to me how a case gets labeled a China Initiative case,” [Seton Hall University Law Professor Margaret] Lewis said. “…By nature, it’s a bit of an amorphous creature.” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” On September 25, 2021, the University World News published Professor acquittal - Is China Initiative out of control? Dr. Anming Hu, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville professor, faced federal charges related to his alleged connection to Beijing University of Technology while receiving funding from NASA. He was the first to go to trial under the China Initiative, which aims to prevent economic espionage and technology theft. However, Judge Thomas A Varlan dismissed all charges, criticizing the FBI's weak case. Despite this, Hu faced a lengthy legal ordeal, beginning with an indictment in 2020. The FBI's investigation relied on questionable evidence, including Google Translate translations and a lack of understanding of NASA grant procedures. The prosecution's case crumbled under scrutiny, revealing flaws in the FBI's methods and biases against individuals of Chinese descent. Jurors expressed disbelief in the case's merit, leading to a mistrial. The China Initiative, criticized for targeting individuals based on ethnicity, has faced calls for its end. Concerns about racial profiling and the initiative's effectiveness have prompted scrutiny from scholars, former prosecutors, and lawmakers. Despite the dismissal of charges, Hu's ordeal underscores the need for reform in how such cases are handled and the impact of biased policies on individuals and communities. “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” On September 28, 2021, Law360 published “Overheated”: How a Chinese-Spy Hunt at DOJ Went Too Far . In July 2020, Dr. Chen Song and four other visiting Chinese scientists were arrested under the China Initiative and accused of concealing their military affiliations while applying for visas in the U.S. Their cases were dropped in July 2021. Documents unearthed in the cases show politics and pressure from the top propelling bad cases forward, overwhelming skeptics within the government. Two of the visa defendants spent more than a year in jail, even though their cases were ultimately abandoned. Another was locked up nine months, with his fiancée jailed for two months as a possible witness. Song was one of the lucky ones, spending only four days in jail. According to a Law360 analysis, nearly two dozen academics have been indicted under the China Initiative, including U.S. citizens and longtime residents, and the overwhelming majority have been charged for errors on government paperwork or alleged false statements to investigators. More cases have ended in dismissals than convictions, and many defendants have accused investigators of misconduct. The initiative has led to a significant exodus of Chinese researchers from the U.S., with concerns about persecution driving many to leave. Critics also point out that the focus on Chinese economic espionage overlooks other national security threats, leading to calls for reforms and an internal DOJ investigation into the initiative. Jump to: Overview “Security Initiative’s aim is questioned” “Why Trump’s anti-spy ‘China Initiative’ is unraveling” “Has the ‘China Initiative’ Run Its Course?” “Is China Initiative Out of Control?” “How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far” Multiple media reports the China Initiative as unraveling and out of control after cases that were sensationally publicized early on by the government began to be dismissed or acquitted in courts rapidly in a span of several months. Previous Next 10. The China Initiative Unraveling and Out of Control

3 scientists were ousted by MD Anderson Cancer Center over concerns about Chinese conflicts of interest. April 19, 2019 On April 19, 2019, the Houston Chronicle and Science jointly reported that 3 scientists were ousted by MD Anderson Cancer Center over concerns about Chinese conflicts of interest, the first such publicly disclosed punishments since federal officials directed some institutions to investigate specific professors in violation of granting agency policies. MD Anderson took the actions after receiving e-mails last year from the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s largest public funder of biomedical research, describing conflicts of interest or unreported foreign income by five faculty members. The agency, which has been assisted by the FBI, gave the cancer center 30 days to respond. The departures follow an unprecedented Houston gathering last summer at which FBI officials warned Texas academic and medical institution leaders of the threat, particularly from insiders, and called on them to share with the agency any and all suspicious behavior and information. On April 25, 2019, the United Chinese Americans (UCA), a nationwide nonprofit and nonpartisan federation and a community civic movement, released a statement to raise concerns for Chinese American scientists as collateral damage in the crossfire between the United States and China due to deteriorating relations, including five appeals to address the current situartion. This was reported by the Houston Chronicle on April 29, 2019, expressing "grave concern" that ethnically Chinese scientists have become "collateral damage in the crossfire" of deteriorating U.S.-China relations. 3 scientists were ousted by MD Anderson Cancer Center over concerns about Chinese conflicts of interest. Previous Next Chinese Scientists Ousted from MD Anderson Cancer Center

Kansas University Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao became the first academic and scientist of Chinese origin to be indicted in August 2019. He was followed by Professors Anming Hu and Gang Chen, Researcher Dr. Qing Wang, New York Police Department Officer Baimadajie Angwang, a group of five STEM researchers and students from China, and others. The year 2020 saw the injustice inflicted by the government shifting and intensifying its profiling of scientists, most of them of Chinese origin, for “research integrity” in the name of national security. August 21, 2019 Table of Contents Overview Feng “Franklin” Tao 陶丰 Anming Hu 胡安明 Qing Wang 王擎 The Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 Gang Chen 陈刚 Before China Initiative: Xiafen “Sherry” Chen 陈霞芬 and Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 Before China Initiative: Wen Ho Lee 李文和 Links and references Overview The Chinese character for injustice 冤 is an ideogrammic (a graphic symbol that represents an idea) compound of putting a cover 冖 on a rabbit 兔. According to Wiktionary , the same character is used in Japanese Kanji, Korean Hanja, and Vietnamese Han characters. The ancient form of the character reportedly first appeared in the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC). Profiling and discrimination against Asian Americans is not new. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first and only major federal legislation to explicitly suspend immigration based on national origin and race. During World War II, 125,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II because of their ancestry and unproven question of loyalty. Before the China Initiative, Wen Ho Lee 李文和 was targeted and scapegoated for providing nuclear secrets to the government of China. Prior to the China Initiative, Xiafen “Sherry” Chen 陈霞芬, Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星, and other scientists in academia, federal government, and private industry were alleged to pass secrets to China, only to have all their charges dropped at the end. Under the China Initiative, Professor Feng "Franklin" Tao 陶丰 became the first academic and scientist of Chinese origin to be indicted in August 2019. The shift from economic espionage to “research integrity” in the guise of national security would continue intensely for the next two years. Dr. Qing Wang 王擎 was fired from his research position before he was indicted in May 2020. In the last full day of the Trump Administration in January 2021, Professor Gang Chen 陈刚 was indicted with the prosecutor questioning his loyalty to the United States. Professor Anming Hu 胡安明 became the first to go to trial in June 2021 and was fully exonerated by the end of the trial. New York Police Department (NYPD) Officer Baimadajie Angwang (昂旺) was charged with acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China in September 2020. NYPD failed not only to reinstate him, but proceeded to terminate his employment in one of the most egregious injustices of the modern era. Most of these individuals are naturalized and accomplished US citizens born in China. Officer Angwang was deployed as a U.S. marine to Afghanistan and joined the Army Reserve. Although their charges were eventually dropped or acquitted, the injustice has already caused severe damage to their careers, reputation, finances, and families. Timed to coincide with the US closing of China’s consulate in Houston as a “spy center” in July 2020, five Chinese researchers were arrested and charged separately for visa fraud, alleging them to be spies on behalf of China’s People’s Liberation Army. The Department of Justice summarily dropped all five cases a year later. Feng “Franklin” Tao 陶丰 On August 21, 2019, Feng “Franklin” Tao 陶丰 became the first academic of Chinese origin to be indicted under the China Initiative. An associate professor at Kansas University’s (KU) Center for Environmentally Beneficial Catalysis (CEBC), Franklin Tao was initially charged with one count of wire fraud and three counts of program fraud, which was superseded to 10 charges. He was employed since August 2014 by the CEBC, whose mission is to conduct research on sustainable technology to conserve natural resources and energy. All charges against Professor Tao were dismissed or acquitted except one. He was convicted by a jury for one count of making a false statement to KU. As another rejection by U.S. courts of the government’s attempt to prosecute Chinese-born scientists for lapses in reporting their research interactions with China, the judge handed down the lightest possible sentence - 2 years of probation that could be cut in half for good behavior. Professor Tao has appealed to overturn the one-count conviction. A decision on his appeal is pending. [Link to Franklin’s webpage under Impacted Persons] Anming Hu 胡安明 On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). Professor Hu was charged with three counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements. Professor Hu was the first U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry facing dubious charges under the "China Initiative" to go to trial on June 7, 2021. The trial revealed the zeal of the misguided “China Initiative” to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial. On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked. On July 30, 2021, the U.S. Government announced that it intended to retry the case against Professor Hu. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued an order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges. [Link to Anming Hu’s webpage under Impacted Persons] Qing Wang 王擎 On May 14, 2020, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of Dr. Qing Wang as a former Cleveland Clinic researcher and a Chinese “Thousand Talents” participant. He was charged with false claims and wire fraud related to more than $3.6 million in grant funding that Dr. Wang and his research group allegedly received from NIH. On July 15, 2021, DOJ moved to dismiss its case against Dr. Wang without prejudice. His case was the first detected by APA Justice to have been removed from the DOJ online report after it was dismissed. [Link to Qing Wang’s webpage under Impacted Persons] The Five “Visa Fraud” Cases On July 24, 2020, The U.S. ordered China to close its consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. Apparently timed to support the announcement, four researchers from China were charged with visa fraud “after lying about their work for China’s People’s Liberation Army.” It was followed by the indictment of a fifth researcher from China in August 2020. The five Chinese nationals are four biomedical and cancer researchers in California and a doctoral candidate studying artificial intelligence in Indiana: Lei Guan (关磊), Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛), Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟), Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣), Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯), Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University In December 2020, Assistant Attorney General John Demers made a dubious claim that more than 1,000 visiting researchers affiliated with the Chinese military fled the United States in the summer. In July 2021, all five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ. [Link to all five individuals’ web pages under Impacted Persons] Baimadajie Angwang (昂旺) On September 21, 2020, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of Baimadajie Angwang, a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer and United States Army reservist, alleging him for acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China as well as committing wire fraud, making false statements and obstructing an official proceeding. On January 19, 2023, all charges against Officer Angwang were formally dropped after U.S. prosecutors said they uncovered new information that warranted the dismissal. Angwang, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Tibet, China, spent six months in custody before being granted bail. Although all federal charges against Officer Angwang were dismissed, NYPD not only did not reinstate him, but proceeded to start administrative proceedings against him in September 2023. NYPD terminated his employment in January 2024. [See Baimadajie Angwang’s web page (under development) under Impacted Persons] Gang Chen 陈刚 On January 14, 2021, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of MIT Professor Gang Chen, alleging him for failing to disclose contracts, appointments and awards from various entities in the People’s Republic of China to the U.S. Department of Energy. When then-U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling unveiled the charges at a news conference in Boston on the last full day of the Trump administration, he said, “it is not illegal to collaborate with foreign researchers. It’s illegal to lie about it. The allegations in the complaint imply that this was not just about greed, but about loyalty to China.” On January 20, 2022, all charges against Professor Chen were dropped. Professor Chen describes himself to be the luckiest among the unlucky because he had full support from MIT, its faculty members, and the Asian Pacific American and scientific communities. He is the namesake of the “We Are All Gang Chen” movement. “When I endured was not an isolated incident, but the result of a long American history of scapegoating and harmful policy making. Having secured our seat at the table, we must remain engaged, committed, and vigilant to prevent civil rights abuses for the next generation,” he said. [See Gang Chen’s web page under Impacted Persons] Before China Initiative: Xiafen “Sherry” Chen 陈霞芬 and Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 A pattern of racial profiling against Chinese American scientists began to emerge in 2015 under the Obama Administration prior to the official launch of the China Initiative. In a relatively short time span, four naturalized American citizens in three separate situations were indicted for one of the most serious crimes related to espionage and trade secrets that carried heavy penalties in prison terms and fines. These individuals - Guiqing Cao, Shuyu Li, Sherry Chen, and Xiaoxing Xi - worked in diverse fields - private industry, federal government, and academia respectively. All three cases were subsequently dismissed or dropped without apology or further explanation. This is highly unusual because the Department of Justice (DOJ) prides itself on its mission of prosecuting criminal cases. Conviction rate is a key measure of success and performance. Annual statistical reports show that the overall DOJ conviction rate in all criminal prosecutions has been over 90% every year since 2001. The rate for espionage-related charges is expected to be much higher than average due to its serious nature and impact on the accused. Sherry Chen won a historic settlement from the US Department of Commerce in November 2022. Professor Xiaoxing Xi’s civil lawsuit against the FBI is still ongoing at this time. The APA Justice Task Force was formed in response to a call by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, in 2015 as a platform to address racial profiling and related justice and fairness issues for the Asian Pacific American communities. [Link to Sherry Chen, Xiaoxing Xi, and APA Justice web pages] Before China Initiative: Wen Ho Lee 李文和 Dr. Wen Ho Lee is a Taiwanese-American nuclear scientist and a mechanical engineer who worked for the University of California at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico from 1978 to 1999. Dr. Lee came to the US in 1964 at the age of 26 to attend Texas A&M University. He received his doctorate in mechanical engineering in 1970 and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1974. He worked for the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. He moved to New Mexico in 1978 and worked as a scientist in weapons design at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in applied mathematics and fluid dynamics, from that year until 1999. Dr. Lee was publicly named by US Department of Energy officials, including Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, as a suspect in the theft of classified nuclear-related documents from Los Alamos in 1999. On December 10, 1999, Dr. Lee was arrested, indicted on 59 counts of unlawfully mishandling classified documents, and jailed in solitary confinement without bail for 278 days. On September 13, 2000, Dr. Lee accepted a plea bargain on one count from the federal government. He was released on time served. Upon the sentencing, Judge James Parker offered a formal apology to Dr. Lee, “I have no authority to speak on behalf of the executive branch, the president, the vice president, the attorney general, or the secretary of the Department of Energy. As a member of the third branch of the United States Government, the judiciary, the United States courts, I sincerely apologize to you, Dr. Lee, for the unfair manner you were held in custody by the executive branch.” In 2003, Dr. Lee wrote a memoir with Helen Zia, “My Country Versus Me”, to tell his story how his Asian ethnicity was a primary factor behind his prosecution by the government. In June 2006, Dr. Lee won a historic settlement over violation of his privacy rights and received $1.65 million from the government and five news organizations. Judge James Parker passed away in September 2022. Secretary Bill Richardson died in September 2023. 2018/03/12 Jeremy Wu: Revisiting Judge Parker’s Apology to Dr. Wen Ho Lee 2006/06/03 Washington Post: Wen Ho Lee Settles Privacy Lawsuit 2003/01/08 Wen Ho Lee and Helen Zia: My Country Versus Me: The First-Hand Account by the Los Alamos Scientist Who Was Falsely Accused of Being a Spy 2001/02/04 New York Times: The Making of a Suspect: The Case of Wen Ho Lee 2000/09/26 New York Times: From The Editors; The Times and Wen Ho Lee 2000/09/14 New York Times: Statement by Judge in Los Alamos Case, With Apology for Abuse of Power 2000/09/13 ABC News: Wen Ho Lee Freed After Guilty Plea 2000/12/04 C-SPAN: The Wen Ho Lee Story (video 1:11:24) 1999/08/01 60 Minutes: "Spy?" - Wen Ho Lee (video 16:55) Jump to: Overview Feng “Franklin” Tao 陶丰 Anming Hu 胡安明 Qing Wang 王擎 The Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 Gang Chen 陈刚 Before China Initiative: Xiafen “Sherry” Chen 陈霞芬 and Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 Before China Initiative: Wen Ho Lee 李文和 Kansas University Professor Feng “Franklin” Tao became the first academic and scientist of Chinese origin to be indicted in August 2019. He was followed by Professors Anming Hu and Gang Chen, Researcher Dr. Qing Wang, New York Police Department Officer Baimadajie Angwang, a group of five STEM researchers and students from China, and others. The year 2020 saw the injustice inflicted by the government shifting and intensifying its profiling of scientists, most of them of Chinese origin, for “research integrity” in the name of national security. Previous Next 4. Shift to Profiling Scientists of Chinese Origin

A group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida filed a lawsuit to combat Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. May 22, 2023 Legal Docket : SHEN v. SIMPSON (4:23-cv-00208) On May 22, 2023, a group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida, as well as a real estate brokerage firm in Florida that primarily serves clients of Chinese descent, filed a lawsuit to combat Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. Signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the legislation unfairly restricts most Chinese citizens — and most citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — from purchasing homes in the state. Unless the courts act, the law became effect on July 1, 2023. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, DeHeng Law Offices PC 德恒律师事务所, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP , in coordination with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance 华美维权同盟 (CALDA). The lawsuit argues that SB 264 will codify and expand housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation of the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. It will also cast an undue burden of suspicion on anyone seeking to buy property whose name sounds remotely Asian, Russian, Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan, or Syrian. Gov. DeSantis has argued that this law is necessary to protect Florida from the Chinese Communist Party and its activities. But this misguided rationale unfairly equates Chinese people with the actions of their government, and there is no evidence of national security harm resulting from real estate ownership by Chinese people in Florida. Florida’s dangerous new law recalls similar efforts over the past century to weaponize false claims of “national security” against Asian immigrants and other marginalized communities. In the early 1900s, politicians across the country used similar justifications to pass “ alien land laws ” prohibiting Chinese and Japanese immigrants from becoming landowners. These racist policies not only hurt immigrants financially, but also severely exacerbated violence and discrimination against Asian communities living in the United States. Over time, these laws were struck down by the courts or were repealed by state legislatures because they violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. A group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida filed a lawsuit to combat Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. Previous Next Lawsuit Against Florida Senate Bill 264