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 The Chinese Exclusion Act and its amendments were not repealed until 1943.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

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. Court Hearing and A New Movement Emerges This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Lawsuit Against Florida Senate Bill 264 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Texas House Bill 1075 and Senate Bill 552 This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. Campaign to Oppose The Nomination of Casey Arrowood This is your News article. It’s a great place to highlight press coverage, newsworthy stories, industry updates or useful resources for visitors. 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.

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

The University of North Texas has suddenly ended its relationship with visiting scholars receiving funding from China. August 26, 2020 On August 26, 2020, the University of North Texas (UNT) announced that it has ended "its relationship with visiting scholars who receive funding from the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC, also known as the Chinese Scholarship Fund)." Access to UNT email, servers, and other materials, as well as the J-1 program under the U.S. Exchange Visit Program, were terminated immediately. In essence, the action expelled these scholars from the United States. On August 31, 2020, Ling-Chi Wang, Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley, wrote a letter to UNT to express "shock and profound concern" over the sudden expulsion of students from the university and the U.S. "In the absence of any legitimate explanation, the expulsion appears to be national origin-based and possibly racially and politically motivated, an action explicitly prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964," Professor Wang wrote in the letter. On the same day, retired Julie Tang also wrote to UNT to protest the expulsion of Chinese students . "Their summary removal from the College appears to be a serious violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law under the 14th Amendment," Judge Tang said in the letter. UNT President Neal Smatresk had issued a statement on " Moving Forward and Living Our Values as a Diverse, Inclusive Community " on June 17, 2020. "I am steadfastly committed to celebrating our diversity and working toward the changes necessary for our university to lead in the fight against racism and bias so that each and every individual feels like a valued member of our Mean Green family," the statement said. A concerned individual has also sent a protest message to UNT President Smatresk, pointing out that the purge of Chinese scholars is not based on misbehavior but on the source of their funding assistance. The UNT letter is a "get-out-of-Dodge" letter from the "Sheriff" with no pretense of due process. " It is a resurrection of the shameful Chinese Exclusion Acts of the past." On September 3, 2020, the petition to " Take back the decision to end the relationship with the Chinese scholars who fund by CSC " has gathered morfe than 6,000 signatures. It has been reported that UNT expelled 15 Chinese government-backed scholars. It is unknown at this time whether the expulsion is a unilateral decision made by UNT, how many other higher education institutions have taken similar action on their own, or an implemenation of a government policy. Available evidence suggests that it may be related to a 2020/08/18 letter from a State Department official. The University of North Texas has suddenly ended its relationship with visiting scholars receiving funding from China. Previous Next Another Purge of Scholars from China?

June 7, 2019 A fallout from racial profiling Chinese American scientists is the loss of talent by the U.S. in an increasingly competitive world for talents. A June 7, 2019 Asian Times article provides ample current and past examples and a succinct summary of how " US will regret persecuting Chinese scientists . " Racial profiling harms the long-term interests of America by forcing talented and renowned scientists, many of them naturalized U.S. citizens, out of the country into the welcoming arms of China. Ironically, profiling those in China's talent recruitment programs actually facilitates China’s recruitment. Stigmatizing all students from China, which exceeded 350,000 at US universities in 2017, as potential spies for China will not enhance but harm the pipeline of American research and innovation. This May 29 essay titled " My Science Has No Nationality " by a young Chinese American female physicist describes the plight of many of today's Chinese American scientists. 2019/07/15 Inside Higher Ed: Attacking Chinese on Our Campuses Only Hurts America Examples of America's Lost Talents Dr. Xin Zhao , a prize-winning applied physicist from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, had to relocate his startup venture to commercialize some of the school’s patented nanotechnology from the U.S. to China after a federal investigation that included a failed sting, airport stops and an unfounded child-porn search. Dr. Chunzai Wang , a U.S. citizen and one of the foremost experts on ocean-atmosphere interaction, climate change, and hurricanes in the world, is now a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in China. He was a research oceanographer in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He received the NOAA Research Scientist of the Year award in 2012 and 2013. Dr. Xifeng Wu , a U.S. citizen, is now Dean of School of Public Health, Vice President for the Second Affiliated Hospital and the Director for National Institute of Health Big Data, Zhejiang University in China. She was Director, Center for Public Health and Translational Genomics and Professor, Department of Epidemiology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in January 2019. Dr. Xiaorong Wang is now a Distinguished Professor of School of Chemical Science and Engineering and of Institute for Advanced Study at Tongji University at Shanghai, China. He was a project and group leader at Bridgestone Americas Center for Research and Technology and received the Bridgestone/Firestone CEO Award for distinguished research. Dr. Xuesen Qian (1911-2009) is known as the founder of engineering cybernetics and father of the space program for China. He was a co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the U.S. During the Second Red Scare in the 1950s, the U.S. government accused him of communist sympathies. After spending five years under house arrest, he was released in 1955 and deported to China. The head of the US Navy at the time was quoted as saying that Qian’s deportation was "the stupidest thing this country ever did. He was no more a communist than I was and we forced him to go.” Latest from BBC: Qian Xuesen: The scientist deported from the US who helped China into space Previous Next America Loses Talent by Racial Profiling

Terms of Use This document sets forth the terms of use for the APA Justice website at www.apajustice.org (“Site”). Please read the following terms of use carefully. These terms of use govern your use of this Site and all applications, software and services available on this Site. Last updated: December 25, 2018 Acceptance of Terms You acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by these terms of use and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation U.S. export and re-export technical data exported from the United States or the country in which you reside. You further agree to comply with all local laws, regulations and rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content. You represent you have the legal authority to accept these terms of use on behalf of yourself or any party you represent. If you do not agree to these terms of use, do not use this Site in any manner. Description of Site "Site" encompasses the website and all of its content and policies, any modifications, updates, enhancements, revisions, new features, and/or the addition of any new web properties. We reserve the right to make any Site changes at any time and without prior notice. Modifications We reserve the right to revise, supplement, update, delete and change these Terms of Use at any time at its sole discretion and without notice to you. All Terms of Use changes are effective immediately upon being posted. Your continued use of this Site after any changes to these Terms of Use will mean you accept those changes. We may also change or impose fees for products and services provided through the Site at any time in its sole discretion. APA Justice Privacy Policy Our privacy policy governs the use of information collected from or provided by you at the Site. For more information, see our privacy policy for this Site. Site Ownership The Site, including all text, logos or graphic images appearing therein, and any and all intellectual property rights associated with this Site and its contents are the sole property of the Site owners, its affiliates or third parties. The content is protected by copyright and other laws in both the United States and other countries. Elements of the Site are also protected by trade dress, trade secret, unfair competition, and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. All graphics, icons, and other items that appear on the Site are trademarks, service marks, trade dress and/or copyrighted works ("Intellectual Property") of the Site owner, its affiliates or other entities that have granted the Site owners the right and license to use such Intellectual Property and may not be used or interfered with in any manner without the express written consent of the Site owner. Except as expressly provided herein, the Site owner does not grant you an express or implied right to the Site owner's or any third party's Intellectual Property. The information on the Site is intended to provide corporate, product, or service information only and may not be used for any other purposes. Site Use Restrictions The unauthorized copying, displaying or other use of any content from this Site is a violation of law. The Site is for your personal and non-commercial use only. You will not (i) post on or transmit to the Site any defamatory, libelous, obscene, pornographic, profane, threatening, or unlawful materials or any materials that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability, whether under statute, common law or equitable principles, or otherwise violate any law; (ii) copy, reproduce, modify, lease, loan, sell, create derivative works from, upload, transmit, or distribute the intellectual property of the Site in any way without the Site owners' or the appropriate third party's prior written permission or (iii) use the Site in any manner that violates any applicable laws, regulations, orders, or other restrictions. Trademarks and Service Marks There may be a number of proprietary logos, service marks, trademarks, slogans and product designations found on this Site, including but not limited to: the APA Justice name and seal. Other trademarks displayed on this Site through links to other sites are the property of the respective trademark owners. By making these marks available on this Site, the APA Justice owners do not confer upon you any of the Site's or any third party's intellectual property rights. The APA Justice trademark may be used as a hyperlink without the APA Justice owners' prior written permission. Copyright Trademark Notices All content of the Site is: Copyright © 2015-2019 APA Justice. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Indemnification You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold APA Justice harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or related to your use of the Site. Links to Third Party Websites Are Not Endorsements This Site may provide links to other third-party World Wide Web sites or resources. The APA Justice owners make no representations or warranties whatsoever about any other website which you may access through this Site. Because the APA Justice owners have no control over such sites and resources, you acknowledge and agree that the APA Justice owners are not responsible for the availability of such external sites or resources and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products, services or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. It is your responsibility to take precautions to ensure that whatever you select for your use is free of viruses, worms, Trojan horses and other items of a destructive nature. References on this Site to any names, marks, products or services of any third parties or hypertext links to third party sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you, and do not constitute or imply an endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of, or affiliation with the third party or its products and services. The APA Justice owners shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any such third-party content, products or services available on or through any such site or resource. Notices and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement The Site owners will investigate notices of copyright infringement and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) ("DMCA"). Pursuant to the DMCA, written notification of claimed copyright infringement must be submitted to the following Designated Agent for the APA Justice owners in accordance with the DMCA: APA Justice, Attention DMCA Designated Agent, APA Justice Headquarters, contact@apajustice.org . Email/Feedback Property of APA Justice You may choose to use email to communicate with the APA Justice owners. If you choose to email the APA Justice owners, know that the Internet is not secure or private, unauthorized people may be able to intercept and read the mail you send to the APA Justice owners or mail the APA Justice owners send to you. Since email can be used to spread viruses, you should install and maintain virus protection software on your PC. To the extent permitted by applicable law, any comments or materials (collectively "Feedback") sent to APA Justice including but not limited to questions, submissions, suggestions, ideas, postings, comments or the like shall become the property of APA Justice upon receipt. APA Justice shall have no obligation of any kind with respect to such Feedback and shall be free to modify, copy, perform, publish, transmit, reproduce, use, exhibit, disclose, display, transform, copyright, create derivative works, distribute the Feedback to others and otherwise exploit the Feedback without limitation. Further, APA Justice shall be free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such Feedback for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to developing, manufacturing and marketing products incorporating such information. Limitation of Liability APA Justice will not be liable to you or any third party for any damages of any kind arising out of or relating to the use of the inability to use this Site, its content or links, including but not limited to loss of profits or other damages caused by or related to errors, omission, interruptions, defects, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus, line failure, and all other direct, indirect, special incidental, exemplary or consequential damages of any kind whether under these terms of use. statute, regulation, common law precedent or doctrine, even if APA Justice has been advised of the possibility of such damages or was negligent. In jurisdictions that prohibit the exclusion or limitation of liability for for incidental or consequential damages, APA Justice's liability is limited to the greatest extent permitted by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, APA Justice's total liability to you for all loses, damages, and causes of action, including but not limited to those based on contract, tort or otherwise, arising out of your use of this Site, its content or links, shall not exceed the amount you paid to access this Site. The information on this Site, including text, images, and links, and the information on any websites, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with APA Justice, which you may visit through the Site, is provided "As Is" by APA Justice as a convenience to all users. without representation or warranty of any kind to you or any third party, inclduing but not limited to, any express or implied warranties (I) of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; (II) of informational content or accuracy; (III) of non-infringement; (IV) of quiet enjoyment; (V) of title; (VI) that the Site will be uninterrupted or error-free; (VII) that nay defects or erros in the Site will be corrected; (VIII) that the Site or the server that makes it available are free from viruses or other harmful components or (IX) that the Site is compatible with any particular hardware or software platform. Efforts by APA Justice to modify the Site shall not be deemed a waiver of these limitations. Governing Law These Terms of Use are entered into and granted in the District of Columbia and shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, excluding any law or conflicts or law principle that would apply the law of another jurisdiction, and excluding the District of Columbia Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. You expressly agree that the exclusive jurisdiction for any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms of Use shall be filed only in the federal or state court with competent jurisdiction located in Washington, DC. You consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by such courts in any such action. If any part of these Terms and Conditions is unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that part will be deemed severable and will not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. Entire Agreement These Terms of Use constitute the entire agreement between you and APA Justice and govern your use of the Site, superceding any prior agreements between you and APA Justice relating to your use of this Site. Use of Communication Services Site may in the future contain bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, "Communication Services"). You agree to use the Communication Services only to post, send and receive messages and material that are proper and related to the particular Communication Service. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using a Communication Service, you will not: Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others. Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any inappropriate, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent or unlawful topic, name, material or information. Upload files that contain software or other material protected by intellectual property laws (or by rights of privacy of publicity) unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents. Upload files that contain viruses, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer. Advertise or offer to sell or buy any goods or services for any business purpose, unless such Communication Service specifically allows such messages. Conduct or forward surveys, contests, pyramid schemes or chain letters. Download any file posted by another user of a Communication Service that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally distributed in such manner. Falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is uploaded. Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Communication Services. Violate any code of conduct or other guidelines which may be applicable for any particular Communication Service. Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses, without their consent. Violate any applicable laws or regulations. APA Justice has no obligation to monitor the Communication Services. However, APA Justice reserves the right to review materials posted to a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion. APA Justice reserves the right to terminate your access to any or all of the Communication Services at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever. APA Justice reserves the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, or to edit, refuse to post or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in APA Justice's sole discretion. Always use caution when giving out any personally identifying information about yourself or other people in any Communication Service. APA Justice does not control or endorse the content, messages or information found in any Communication Service and, therefore, APA Justice specifically disclaims any liability with regard to the Communication Services and any actions resulting from your participation in any Communication Service. By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your submission to APA Justice, you are granting APA Justice, its affiliated companies and necessary sub licensees permission to use your submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your submission; and to publish your name in connection with your submission. No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your submission, as provided herein. APA Justice is under no obligation to post or use any submission you may provide and may remove any submission at any time in APA Justice's sole discretion. By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the submissions. Termination APA Justice reserves the right to terminate at any time, at its sole discretion, the Site and/or your use of the Site. Unlawful or Prohibited Use Possible evidence of use of this Site for illegal purposes will be provided to law enforcement authorities. Please report any violations of these Terms of Use to APA Justice at contact@apajustice.org . Contact contact@apajustice.org

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

Headlined by “How Not to Cure Cancer – The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a New Red Scare,” investigative reports emerged on FBI and NIH nationwide activities targeting individuals of Asian descent, especially biomedical researchers in the Houston area. April 19, 2019 Table of Contents Overview MD Anderson Cancer Center Purge of Chinese Cancer Researchers Congressional Probe NIH’s China Initiative Links and References Overview In April 2019, the Houston Chronicle and Science collaborated to produce a series of alarming reports on the targeting of biomedical researchers of Asian descent in the Houston area led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The MD Anderson Cancer Center is the first publicly known instance where NIH's inquiries have led an institution to invoke proceedings against researchers who allegedly have violated the rules. On Jun 19, 2019, Bloomberg Business published an investigative report titled “ The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a new Red Scare .” It identified the NIH and FBI for targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, including U.S. citizens, searching for a cancer cure. It provided the first account of what happened to Dr. Xifeng Wu 吴息凤. MD Anderson Cancer Center On April 19, 2019, Science reported that NIH inquiries about the foreign ties of specific NIH-funded researchers prompted at least 55 institutions to launch investigations. Five researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, part of the University of Texas system, were the first publicly known instances where NIH’s inquiries led an institution to invoke termination proceedings. Three senior researchers were ousted; one was under investigation; and one did not warrant termination. All were Chinese. MD Anderson had been working with the FBI for several years on undisclosed national security investigations, which included searches of faculty email accounts and in one instance, video surveillance. MD Anderson's actions, as well as the larger NIH and FBI efforts, added to concerns in the Chinese American science community that U.S. officials were targeting researchers for special scrutiny based on their ethnicity. On December 11, 2017, FBI received the cancer center's permission to obtain information from as many as 23 employee email accounts. The revelations fueled complaints that MD Anderson was targeting its Chinese and Chinese American scientists for special scrutiny and removal. Some of the center's critics counted 10 senior MD Anderson researchers or administrators of Chinese descent who had retired, resigned, or been placed on administrative leave in 17 months. Some of these researchers reportedly left of their own accord, but their supporters said that a toxic climate and the perception of racial profiling hastened their departure. Mien-Chie Hung, a researcher born in Taiwan left MD Anderson echoed that view of a brain drain as scientists left under a cloud of suspicion. Hung retired from his position as the cancer center's vice president for basic research to take a job as president of China Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan. He co-authored a letter to Science raising concerns about possible racial profiling at institutions across the country, expressing hope that "increased security measures will not be used to tarnish law-abiding scientists." Some researchers worried the campaign to root out foreign influence at MD Anderson would be counterproductive and prompted some researchers to leave the United States. "These are the top talents that foreign countries have been trying to recruit unsuccessfully," says Steven Pei, an engineering professor in Houston and a former chairman of the board of United Chinese Americans. By November 4, 2019, The New York Times reported 71 institutions, including many of the most prestigious medical schools in the United States, were investigating 180 individual cases involving potential theft of intellectual property. The cases began after the NIH, prompted by information provided by the FBI, sent 18,000 letters in 2018 urging administrators who oversee government grants to be vigilant. Purge of Chinese Cancer Researchers On June 13, 2019, Bloomberg Business published an investigative report titled “ The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a new Red Scare. ” It provided a first account of what happened to Dr. Xifeng Wu, an award-winning epidemiologist and naturalized American citizen. She quietly stepped down as director of the Center for Public Health and Translational Genomics at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Wu resigned in January 2019 after facing several months of investigation and was branded as an oncological double agent in an increasingly globalized world of cancer research. Her resignation, and the recent departures of three other top Chinese American scientists from Houston-based MD Anderson, stem from the China Initiative. Behind the investigation that led to Wu’s exit—and other such probes across the country—was the NIH, in coordination with the FBI. According to the Bloomberg Business report, the NIH, the world’s biggest public funder of basic biomedical research, wields immense power over the nation’s health-research community. It allocates about $26 billion a year in federal grants; roughly $6 billion of that goes to cancer research. In June 2019, NIH officials told the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that the agency had contacted 61 research institutions about suspected diversion of proprietary information by grant recipients and referred 16 cases, mainly involving undisclosed ties to foreign governments, for possible legal action. Ways of working that had long been encouraged by the NIH and many research institutions, particularly MD Anderson, are now quasi-criminalized, with FBI agents reading private emails, stopping Chinese scientists at airports, and visiting people’s homes to ask about their loyalty. Wu had not been charged with stealing anyone’s ideas, but in effect she stood accused of secretly aiding and abetting cancer research in China, an un-American activity in today’s political climate. She had spent 27 of her 56 years at MD Anderson. A month after resigning, she left her husband and two kids in the U.S. and took a job as dean of a school of public health in China. In the early 2000s, MD Anderson forged “sister” relationships with five major cancer centers in China as part of an initiative to promote international collaborations. In 2015, China awarded MD Anderson its top honor for international scientific cooperation, in a ceremony attended by President Xi Jinping. Wu’s work, like a lot of the academic research now in danger of being stifled, is not about developing patentable drugs. The mission is to reduce risk and save lives by discovering the causes of cancer. Prevention is not a product. It is not sellable. Or stealable. “Historians will have to sort out whether Wu’s story and others like it marked a turning point when U.S. research institutions got serious about China’s avarice for American intellectual property, or a dangerous lurch down the path of paranoia and racial profiling. Or both. In any case, recent events in Houston and elsewhere indicate that Chinese people in America, including U.S. citizens, are now targeted for FBI surveillance,” the Bloomberg Business report said. Congressional Probe On February 20, 2020, The Hill reported that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who chairs the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) sent letters to NIH and FBI demanding documents about the two agencies' investigations into whether Chinese Americans were working as spies on behalf of China. While the two lawmakers acknowledged that there have been some confirmed cases of espionage, they questioned whether the focus on Chinese Americans amounted to racial profiling. In their letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Reps. Raskin and Chu pointed to sample cases of Sherry Chen, Professor Xiaoxing Xi and Dr. Wei Su and requested specific information of the FBI investigations and prosecutions involving theft or attempted threat of intellectual property, monitoring of Chinese students and scholars, communications with NIH, college and university security efforts, and counterintelligence training materials, covering the period of January 1, 2014 to the present. In their letter to NIH Director Francis Collins, Reps. Raskin and Chu requested specific information about mass mailings by NIH to 18,000 administrators, cases under NIH investigations and Office of Inspector General referrals, disclosure guidelines, and all communications with the FBI, covering the period of June 1, 2016 to the present. NIH’s China Initiative On March 23, 2023, over a year after the conclusion of the China Initiative, Science published an investigative report titled " Pall of Suspicion ," revealing that the National Institutes of Health's "China initiative" has disrupted hundreds of lives and destroyed numerous academic careers. For decades, Chinese-born U.S. faculty members were applauded for working with colleagues in China, and their universities cited the rich payoff from closer ties to the emerging scientific giant. But those institutions did an about-face after they began to receive emails in late 2018 from NIH. The emails asked some 100 institutions to investigate allegations that one or more of their faculty had violated NIH policies designed to ensure federal funds were being spent properly. Most commonly, NIH claimed a researcher was using part of a grant to do work in China through an undisclosed affiliation with a Chinese institution. Four years later, 103 of those scientists—some 42% of the 246 targeted in the letters, most of them tenured faculty members—had lost their jobs. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative launched in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump to thwart Chinese espionage, NIH’s version has been conducted behind closed doors. Michael Lauer, head of NIH’s extramural research, says that secrecy is necessary to protect the privacy of individual scientists, who are not government employees. Universities consider the NIH-prompted investigations to be a personnel matter, and thus off-limits to queries from reporters. And the targeted scientists have been extremely reticent to talk about their ordeal. Only one of the five scientists whose cases are described in this article has previously gone public with their story. And only one has pushed back successfully, winning a large settlement against her university for terminating her. But a running tally kept by the agency shows the staggering human toll of NIH’s campaign. Besides the dismissals and forced retirements, more than one in five of the 246 scientists targeted were banned from applying for new NIH funding for as long as 4 years—a career-ending setback for most academic researchers. And almost two-thirds were removed from existing NIH grants. NIH’s data also make clear who has been most affected. Some 81% of the scientists cited in the NIH letters identify as Asian, and 91% of the collaborations under scrutiny were with colleagues in China. NIH is by far the largest funder of academic biomedical research in the United States, and some medical centers receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the agency. So when senior administrators heard Lauer [Michael Lauer, head of NIH’s extramural research] say a targeted scientist “was not welcome in the NIH ecosystem,” they understood immediately what he meant—and that he was expecting action. “If NIH says there’s a conflict, then there’s a conflict, because NIH is always right,” says David Brenner, who was vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego, in November 2018 when the institution received a letter from Lauer asking it to investigate five medical school faculty members, all born in China. “We were told we have a problem and that it was up to us to fix it.” In a panel discussion hosted by the University of Michigan in March 2024, Professor Ann Chih Lin, asserted that NIH made it clear that if they couldn’t resolve concerns regarding a faculty member and a grant, NIH would not only require universities to repay the grant, but also investigate universities’ entire portfolio of NIH grants. Fearing the loss of grant money, universities often approached the implicated professors and encouraged them to resign voluntarily or retire early. This strategy aimed to avoid a public disciplinary hearing or grievance process, which could bring unwanted attention to the case. Professors involved in such investigations typically refrained from discussing their cases to protect both themselves and the universities, often choosing to depart quietly. Jump to: Overview MD Anderson Cancer Center Purge of Chinese Cancer Researchers Congressional Probe NIH’s China Initiative Headlined by “How Not to Cure Cancer – The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a New Red Scare,” investigative reports emerged on FBI and NIH nationwide activities targeting individuals of Asian descent, especially biomedical researchers in the Houston area. Previous Next 3. Media Reports on Purge by NIH and FBI

From generation to generation, the Asian Pacific American communities have been resilient in fighting against discrimination and protecting their civil rights. It is a continuing effort that transcends the China Initiative, which again confirms the commitment and determination of the communities from elected officials to organizations and individuals. February 27, 2020 Table of Contents: Overview Protesting Petitioning Elected Officials and Policymakers Speaking Out Against Racial Profiling Support of CAPAC and Congressional Members Collecting and Studying Facts and Evidence Timely Response to Urgent Needs Launch of The Anti-Racial Profiling Project The Role of The Media and Telling Our Side of The Story Building and Sustaining Allies Dialogue with the AAU Technology and Yellow Whistle During Pandemic and Beyond Keeping Up with History and Education for the Next Generations Links and References Overview February 27, 2020, is a symbolic date. It was the day when University of Tennessee Professor Anming Hu, a Chinese Canadian, was indicted by the federal government. He was the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative. Hu was not charged for economic espionage, but for wire fraud and making false statements. The trial revealed the zeal of the misguided “China Initiative” to criminalize 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. He was cleared of all charges, marking one of the major turning points in the China Initiative. Unlike other timecards in this series, this section describes the evolving strategies and approaches used by the communities to address the China Initiative. These communities include both within and outside the Asian Pacific American groups, as well as the scientific and academic individuals and organizations. Throughout history, Asian Pacific Americans have faced various forms of discrimination, including xenophobia, racism, and institutional biases. From the struggles of early immigrants facing exclusionary laws to contemporary battles against hate crimes and racial profiling, the resilience of Asian Pacific Americans remains a guiding force across generations. It spans beyond any single initiative, including the China Initiative, or a particular moment or issue. From elected officials to grassroots organizations and individual activists, there is a collective dedication and broad commitment to confronting injustices and advocating for equality for all. The China Initiative may highlight specific challenges, but it served to reinforce the resolve of Asian Pacific American communities to combat discrimination in all its forms. Ultimately, the resilience of Asian Pacific American communities serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration for future generations. Addressing discrimination and advocating for civil rights for all requires a multifaceted approach. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and different strategies must be employed to effectively combat injustices and promote equality. Despite the fears and threats instigated by the China Initiative, the communities used a combination of strategies and approaches to raise awareness and advocate; stand up and speak out; petition elected officials and policymakers; protest in person and in writing; talk and write to the media; collect facts and evidence; raise funds; educate; build allies; run for office and vote; and take legal action and go to court. Protesting Peaceful protest is a time-honored method of drawing attention to injustices and mobilizing collective action. Organizing protests, marches, and demonstrations can exert pressure on policymakers and institutions to address discriminatory practices. Organizations such as United Chinese Americans and the Asian American Scholars Forum, United Chinese Americans, and Tennessee Chinese American Alliance organized protests and rallies outside and inside the courthouses during the trials and hearings of Professors Franklin Tao and Anming Hu, as well as in front of the Department of Justice. References and Links 2023/09/20 Asian American Scholar Forum: Reminder to Attend Appeals Hearing of Professor Franklin Tao . 2022/01/11 United Chinese Americans: UCA Protest Outside DOJ and Press Conference for the Victims of the DOJ’s China Initiative–An Urgent Community Notice 2021/06/08 Tennessee Chinese American Alliance: Press Conference Statement on the trial of Professor Anming Hu Petitioning Elected Officials and Policymakers Writing letters, making phone calls, and organizing lobbying efforts were part of the persistent efforts during the China Initiative. About 30,000 persons joined a petition to then-President-Elect Joe Biden and called for the end of the China Initiative. Led by Stanford University faculty members, thousands of academics and researchers wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland to terminate the China Initiative. Maryland State Senator Susan Lee led successfully a coalition to call for a Congressional hearing on racial profiling of Asian American and Chinese scientists. References and Links 2021/09/08 Winds of Freedom: Stanford Faculty Members Open Letter to AG Garland to End the "China Initiative" 2021/04/09 Advancing Justice | AAJC: Petition of 30,000 People to President Biden Calling for End of the China Initiative 2021/02/01 Maryland State Senator Susan Lee: Calling for a Congressional Hearing on Racial Profiling of Asian American and Chinese Scientists 2021/01/05 Coalition: Letter to President-Elect Joe Biden Calling for End of “China Initiative.” Speaking Out Against Racial Profiling Speaking out against racial profiling is a powerful form of resistance. Whether it is confronting prejudice in everyday interactions or addressing systemic inequalities through public advocacy, individuals can make their voices heard and demand change. On March 22, 2019, three major scientific organizations voiced their concerns about racial profiling by publishing an open letter titled " Racial Profiling Harms Science " in Science. The Society of Chinese Bioscientists in America (SCBA, 美洲华人生物科学学会), The Chinese American Hematologist and Oncologist Network (CAHON, 美国华裔血液及肿瘤专家学会), and The Chinese Biological Investigators Society (CBIS, 华人生物学者教授学会) represent the largest and a rapidly growing professional group for scientists, mostly of Chinese descent, in many biomedical disciplines. The letter spells out the concerns about the recent political rhetoric and policies that single out students and scholars of Chinese descent working in the United States as threats to U.S. national interests. On April 7, 2019, the Committee of 100 (C100 百人会) issued a statement condemning racial profiling against Chinese Americans during its annual conference in New York. The statement responds to FBI Director Christopher Wray and a few high-level American government officials, respected media outlets, and opinion leaders who have stated or suggested in recent years that all Chinese persons in America should be suspected of wrongdoing. However, "overzealous criminal prosecutions in recent years of innocent individuals such as Sherry Chen and Xiaoxing Xi, like Wen Ho Lee before them, have embarrassingly fallen apart, while ruining lives for no reason. Such targeting of individuals based on their ethnic heritage or national origin violates our shared American ideals. It simply has to stop." "Racial profiling is wrong and un-American in our nation of democracy." The statement concludes that "by standing up and speaking out for what is right and just, Chinese Americans can help lead the way in answering the call that is always before us as Americans: to embody more perfectly the ideals and principles of this great nation we call home." References and Links 2019/04/07 Committee of 100: Committee of 100 Condemns Chinese American Racial Profiling 2019/03/22 Science: Racial Profiling Harms Science Support of CAPAC and Congressional Members The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) was established on May 16, 1994. Congressman Norman Y. Mineta, one of the founders of CAPAC, became its first Chair. CAPAC serves to ensure that legislation passed by the U.S. Congress reflects the interests and needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, educate fellow Members of Congress about the history and contributions of these communities, collaborate with other caucuses to protect civil rights, establish policies on legislation affecting individuals of Asian and/or Pacific Island ancestry in the United States, and coordinate the efforts of Asian American and Pacific Islander Members of Congress to achieve these goals. Since its founding, CAPAC has been a strong voice for the protection of the civil rights for the APA communities, especially in addressing the racial profiling issue and the China Initiative. Its efforts continue as CAPAC members themselves are also subject to racial profiling and McCarthyism. References and Links: 2024/01/23 CAPAC: CAPAC Members Lead Effort to Prevent the Relaunch Trump-Era China Initiative 2024/01/22 Rep. Grace Meng: Meng, Hirono and Chu Seek to Stop House Republicans From Relaunching Trump-era China Initiative 2023/04/26 CAPAC: In Joint USA Today Op-ed, CAPAC Members Chu, Krishnamoorthi Write: “In competition with Chinese Communist Party, anti-Asian rhetoric only divides” 2023/03/06 CAPAC: Chair Chu on MSNBC.com : "I am a target of the right’s new McCarthyism" 2023/02/23 CAPAC: CAPAC Statement on Rep. Gooden’s Xenophobic Remarks on Fox News 2022/11/14 CAPAC: CAPAC Chair Statement on Sherry Chen’s Settlement with Department of Commerce 2022/02/23 CAPAC: CAPAC Members Welcome End of China Initiative 2022/01/29 CAPAC: CAPAC Members Meet with Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen on China Initiative Concerns 2021/10/29 CAPAC: CAPAC Members and Attorney General Garland Discuss China Initiative, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, and Language Access 2021/09/10 CAPAC: CAPAC Member Statements on Acquittal of Dr. Anming Hu After Mistrial Based on False Evidence 2021/07/30 CAPAC: CAPAC Chair Statement on Retrial of Dr. Anming Hu After Mistrial Based on False Evidence 2021/07/30 Rep. Ted Lieu: Rep. Lieu and 90 Members of Congress Urge DOJ Probe into Alleged Racial Profiling of Asians 2021/07/19 CAPAC: CAPAC Leaders Issue Guidance on Anti-China Messaging and Anti-Asian Violence 2021/06/30 Rep. Jamie Raskin: Roundtable Led by Reps. Raskin and Chu Hears about Effects of Ethnic Profiling Against Chinese American Scientists 2020/02/20 CAPAC: Raskin and Chu Launch Investigation into NIH and FBI Probes of Chinese Scientists 2020/01/20 Rep. Jamie Raskin: Raskin and Chu Launch Investigation into NIH and FBI Probes of Chinese Scientists 2019/07/17 CAPAC: CAPAC Members Applaud Successful Passage of Amendment to Address Racial Profiling of Chinese Americans 2018/02/15 CAPAC: CAPAC Members on Rubio and Wray’s Remarks Singling Out Chinese Students as National Security Threats Collecting and Studying Facts and Evidence Gathering data and evidence to substantiate claims of discrimination and refute false narratives is critical for building strong cases and advocating for systemic reforms. Conducting research, compiling testimonies, and documenting incidents of racial profiling provide compelling evidence to support advocacy efforts. Community and professional organizations, individual research, and the media have all contributed important data and studies about the China Initiative and racial profiling. References and Links 2021/12/14 Bloomberg Businessweek: China Initiative Set Out to Catch Spies. It Didn’t Find Many 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review: The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review: We built a database to understand the China Initiative. Then the government changed its records 2021/11/30 National Association of Scholars: Cracking Down on Illegal Ties to China 2021/11/05 New York Law Journal: DOJ’s China Initiative’s Three-Year Anniversary: Growing Pains and Uncertainty 2021/11/04 NPR: DOJ's China Initiative aims to counter theft of U.S. secrets and technology 2021/10/28 Committee of 100/University of Arizona: Racial Profiling Among Scientists of Chinese Descent and Consequences for the U.S. Scientific Community 2021/10 American Physical Society: Research Security Policies & Their Impacts: Key Results of APS Member Survey 2021/09/28 Law360: 'Overheated': How A Chinese-Spy Hunt At DOJ Went Too Far 2021/09/21 Committee of 100: Racial Disparities in Economic Espionage Act Prosecutions: A Window Into The New Red Scare 2021/09/14 SSRN: Red Scare? A Study of Ethnic Prejudice in the Prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act , PIER Working Paper No. 21-022 2021/08/18 Jeremy Wu: The Importance of Data in Fighting Racial Profiling: from FedCases to "China Initiative” and Beyond 2021/02/09 Cato Institute: Espionage, Espionage‐Related Crimes, and Immigration: A Risk Analysis, 1990–2019 Timely Response to Urgent Needs 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. At about the same time, five researchers from China were arrested and alleged to be spies for China’s military. FBI agents began to knock on doors to demand interviews with persons of Chinese descent, creating widespread fear and anguish in the Chinese American community in Houston. On July 26, 2020, The Intercept published an article: Was The Chinese Consulate in Houston Really a Hotbed of Economic Espionage? According to the article, “people close to China-related investigations in Houston say the decision to close the consulate may be more about politics than spy threats.” During the APA Justice meeting on August 3, 2020, Houston community leaders provided on-the-ground reports and expressed grave concerns about a "witch hunt for spies” by the FBI to use Chinese Americans as “scapegoat” to justify the political claim, for which the U.S. government provided little supporting evidence. Local community leaders appealed to Congress to de-escalate the situation, rein in the rhetoric and irresponsible actions, and provide oversight to protect the civil rights of Chinese Americans. Within three days, OCA, UCA, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and the Asian American Bar Association of Houston co-hosted a “Know Your Rights” webinar on August 6, 2020, to address the urgent question, "What to do if you are questioned by the FBI or police?" Over 850 participated in the webinar. 2020年7月24日，美国命令中国关闭驻休斯敦领事馆，指责其为“间谍中心”，与当地医疗中心或大学进行间谍活动。五名来自中国的研究人员同时被捕，并被指控为中国军方的间谍。联邦调查局（FBI）特工开始挨家挨户敲门要求对在美华人进行采访，在休斯敦的华裔社区中制造了恐惧和痛苦。 7月26日，《拦截》杂志发表一篇文章： 中国驻休斯敦领事馆真的是经济间谍活动的温床吗 ？ 文章称，“接近休斯敦与有关中国的调查人员说，关闭领事馆的决定可能更多是关于政治，而不是间谍威胁。” 在 2020 年 8 月 3 日的 APA Justice 每月例会中，休斯顿社区领袖提供了实地报告，并对 FBI 利用华裔美国人作为“替罪羊”来为政治主张辩护的“政治迫害”表示担忧。美国政府对 “间谍中心” 的指控提供很少支持证据。 当地社区领袖呼吁国会缓和局势，遏制言论和不负责任的行为，并提供监督以保护华裔美国人的公民权利。 三天之内，2020年8月6日，OCA，UCA，Advancing Justice | AAJC 和其他组织共同举办“了解您的权利”网络研讨会，以解决紧急问题：“如果FBI或警察对您提出质疑，该怎么办？ ” 超过 850 人参加了此次网络研讨会。 References and Links 2020/07/26 Intercept: Was The Chinese Consulate in Houston Really a Hotbed of Economic Espionage ? 2020/07/23 Department of Justice: Researchers Charged with Visa Fraud After Lying About Their Work for China’s People’s Liberation Army 2020/07/22 NPR: U.S. Orders China's Houston Consulate To Close, Ratcheting Tensions 2019/08/21 Department of Justice: University of Kansas Researcher Indicted for Fraud for Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest with Chinese University 2019/06/13 Bloomberg Business: The U.S. Is Purging Chinese Cancer Researchers From Top Institutions . 2019/04/19 Science: Exclusive: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian' researchers after NIH flags their foreign ties . Launch of Anti-Racial Profiling Project While short-term actions such as in Houston were necessary, readily available resources were also being developed. On October 7, 2020, Advancing Justice | AAJC launched the Anti-Racial Profiling Project after several months of preparation. The goal of the project is to be a resource, advocate for non-discriminatory policies, provide legal expertise, and to lift up the voices of those impacted by the U.S. government’s increased efforts to target and profile Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists and researchers, particularly of Chinese descent. The concept was advanced by Frank Wu, now President of Queen’s College of the City University of New York, by an essay on “Why You Need A Lawyer.” Initial seed funding was provided by Clarence Kwan, former Chair of Committee of 100, and others. Gisela Perez Kusakawa served as the inaugural director of the project. Individuals seeking legal referral should contact AAJC via the Signal app with the number 202-935-6014 or text ONLY a name and phone number to 202-935-6014 and wait for an AAJC staff member to make direct contact. The project was expanded into the Anti-Profiling, Civil Rights & National Security Program in 2022 with the purpose of combating profiling and protecting the rights of Asian Americans and immigrants through policy advocacy, legal referrals, coalition building, and education for policymakers, the media and the general public. Joanna YangQing Derman is the current director of the program. References and Links 2020/10/07 AsAmNews: AAJC launches Anti-Racial Profiling Project 2020/10/07 Advancing Justice | AAJC: Launch of Anti-Racial Profiling Project Webinar (video 1:00:49) 2020/10/07 Advancing Justice | AAJC: Anti-Racial Profiling Project Description 2020/10/07 Advancing Justice | AAJC: Anti-Racial Profiling Project Webinar Presentation Package 2020/10/07 APA Justice: Anti-Racial Profiling Project Webinar by Dr. Jeremy Wu 2020/10/06 Advancing Justice | AAJC: Anti-Racial Profiling Project Press Briefing (video 52:28) 2020/04/17 Frank Wu: Why You Need A Lawyer 2020/04/17 Frank Wu: Why You Need A Lawyer 2020/04/17 吴华扬: 您为什么需要律师 Know Your Rights by ACLU : What do you do if the FBI or police contact you for questioning? 知道您的权利 （ACLU）：如果FBI或警察联系您进行询问，您应怎么做？ The Role of The Media and Telling Our Side of The Story Asian Americans must share their experiences and tell their side of the story about racial profiling to the media and the public as the government possesses significantly greater resources and access to disseminate its information. By voicing their perspectives, Asian Americans can ensure that their stories are heard and understood, contributing to a more comprehensive and accurate narrative regarding racial profiling and its impacts on the individuals and communities. This proactive engagement can help counteract misconceptions and biases, promote empathy and understanding, and advocate for policies and practices that address racial injustice effectively. Several media reports have significant impacts at different stages of the China Initiative: In August 2018, prior to the launch of the China Initiative, the Houston Chronicle reported an unusual FBI meeting with top leaders from academic and medical institutions in Houston to address security threats posed by foreign adversaries, signaling the launch of a new nationwide initiative. Houston, being a hub of academic and research institutions, was chosen as the starting location for this initiative. In April 2019, Science and the Houston Chronicle collaborated to produce a series of on-site reports revealing the targeting of Chinese American researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center by the FBI and NIH, subjecting the researchers to undisclosed investigations, searches of email accounts unknown to the individuals, and video surveillance. “MD Anderson officials maintain they had little choice but to act after they received letters from NIH detailing allegations and concerns about the researchers.” In essence, MD Anderson threw its faculty under the bus. The reports further deepened the concerns of racial profiling. In June 2019, Bloomberg Business published an investigative report titled “The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a new Red Scare,” identifying the NIH and FBI for targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, including U.S. citizens, searching for a cancer cure. It provided the first account of what happened to Dr. Xifeng Wu 吴息凤. In June 2021, University of Tennessee Knoxville Professor Anming Hu became the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative. Knox News covered the trial end to end, providing a series of shocking, insightful reports as the trial progressed. Thanks to Knox News reporting, especially by reporter Jamie Sattefield, by the time Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges on September 9, 2021, his case would become a symbol of a failed, overreaching China Initiative. In December 2021, MIT Technology Review published not one but two investigative reports. Less than three months later, the Department of Justice announced the end of the China Initiative. Following a proposal by Paula Madison , businesswoman and retired executive from NBCUniversal, in April 2023, APA Justice hosted a virtual Inaugural roundtable to assertively address immediate xenophobic challenges to our freedoms and consider longer-term proactive actions to ensure fairness and justice for all, including the AAPI and immigrant communities. Over 100 community representatives attended and spoke at the online event. Efforts to build a national media network to strengthen the presence and voice of Asian Pacific American communities is an ongoing effort. References and Links 2023/04/03 APA Justice: Paula Madison Speaks at APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review: The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it 2021/12/02 MIT Technology Review: We built a database to understand the China Initiative. Then the government changed its records 2021/09/09 Knox News: Former Tennessee professor acquitted of fraud charges in espionage investigation 2021/08/02 Knox News: Former University of Tennessee professor falsely accused of espionage faces second trial 2021/07/29 Knox News: How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist 2021/06/16 Knox News: Trump Administration's first 'China Initiative' prosecution sputters as jurors deadlock 2021/06/14 Knox News: With spy case a bust, feds seek fraud conviction against University of Tennessee professor 2021/06/13 Knox News: Trial reveals federal agents falsely accused a UT professor born in China of spying 2021/06/09 Knox News: University of Tennessee assured NASA that professor had no prohibited ties to China 2021/06/07 Knox News: Trial of former UT professor centers on whether he concealed ties to Chinese university 2019/06/13 Bloomberg Business: The U.S. Is Purging Chinese Cancer Researchers From Top Institutions 2019/04/23 Science: After ousters, MD Anderson officials try to calm fears of racial profiling 2019/04/19 Science: Exclusive: Major U.S. cancer center ousts ‘Asian' researchers after NIH flags their foreign ties 2018/08/09 Houston Chronicle: FBI warns Texas academic and medical leaders of ‘classified’ security threats Building and Sustaining Allies The Asian Pacific American community needs allies to fight racial profiling because collective action and solidarity amplify their voices and increase their effectiveness in advocating for change. Allies from within our subpopulations, professional disciplines, and other racial and ethnic groups, as well as advocacy organizations and community leaders, can provide support, raise awareness, and challenge systemic injustices. Additionally, allies can help bridge gaps in understanding and empathy, highlight the intersections of racial profiling with other forms of discrimination, and advocate for policies that promote equity and justice for all. “Recent immigrants,” meaning primarily those who came from China within the last 30-40 years, now compose more than half of the Chinese American population, outnumbering the native-borns and the “old immigrants” who came from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other parts of the world after the enactment of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. As the main victims of the China Initiative, “recent immigrants” have also become new advocates and leaders opposing racial profiling and the China Initiative. United Chinese Americans (UCA) and the Asian American Scholars Forum (AASF) are two of these organized efforts. The scientific and academic community is among the strongest allies during and after the China Initiative, engaging in every phase of advocacy, protest, and policymaking. References and Links 2023/01/12 Migration Policy Institute: Chinese Immigrants in the United States 2022/06 AAPI Data: State of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in The United States 2022/02/23 Asian American Scholars Forum: Asian American Scholar Forum Welcomes the End of China Initiative 2022/01/11 United Chinese Americans: Press Conference for the Victims of the DOJ's China Initiative (online) and A Silent Protest in DC 2021/11/05 Science: China Initiative spawns distrust and activism 2021/10/29 University World News: Racial profiling of Chinese scientists is spreading fear 2021/09/08 Winds of Freedom: Stanford Faculty Members Open Letter to AG Garland to End the "China Initiative" 2021/09/01 American Physical Society: Letter to AG Garland and OSTP Director Eric Lander Dialogue with the AAU Founded in 1900, the Association of American Universities (AAU) is composed of America’s leading research universities which collectively help shape policy for higher education, science, and innovation; promote best practices in undergraduate and graduate education; and strengthen the contributions of leading research universities to American society. On September 9, 2022, Dr. Steven Pei and Dr. Jeremy Wu, Co-Organizers of APA Justice, joined a virtual meeting with Senior Research Officers at AAU. The meeting was moderated by Roger Wakimoto, Vice Chancellor for Research, UCLA. It included a 10-minute presentation by Drs. Pei and Wu on "Academic Freedom and Engaging Faculty on Campus - The Asian American Perspective" and a package of backgrounds and references , followed by questions and answers, and robust and productive discussions. The meeting continues our engagement and collaboration with AAU after Toby Smith, Vice President for Science Policy & Global Affairs, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on June 6, 2022. Four wishes from the Asian American faculty perspective were presented to AAU: Engage faculty in the development and implementation of NSPM-33 and similar policies on campus to make sure clear instruction, sufficient support, and proper training are provided to faculty, researchers, and administrative staff. “Establish (an independent or joint with faculty senate) committee (preferably led by a Chinese American faculty) to evaluate, define and protect the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of faculty and administration in cases involving the investigation of faculty by outside agencies” - a resolution passed by the faculty senate of a founding member of AAU Offer and publicize first response followed by independent legal assistance. Consider legal insurance in the long term. Help faculty, staffs, and students to resolve visa, border entry, and related issues. References and Links 2022/09/09 Steven Pei and Jeremy Wu: Academic Freedom and Engaging Faculty on Campus The Asian American Perspective 2022/09/09 Steven Pei and Jeremy Wu: Academic Freedom and Engaging Faculty on Campus The Asian American Perspective - Additional Background and References 2022/06/06 APA Justice: Summary of APA Justice Monthly Meeting on June 6, 2022 Technology and Yellow Whistle During Pandemic and Beyond A year after the launch of the China Initiative, the COVID pandemic hit the Asian American community with two viruses simultaneously - the pathological coronavirus and the social injustice virus. Anti-Asian hate incidents and crimes spiked across the nation when increasing awareness about the prevalence and impact of discrimination was crucial. In times when physical gatherings are limited or not feasible, webinars, virtual events, and social media became powerful tools to maintain communications, share personal experiences, organize educational events, and amplify marginalized voices. These platforms enable organizations to host meetings, workshops, and conferences remotely, allowing participants from diverse geographical locations to come together, share ideas, and collaborate effectively. They provide a platform for marginalized voices to be heard, especially in short notice situations. On Patriots Day, April 19, 2021, The Yellow Whistle Project was started by Dr. Agnes Hsu-Tang and her husband Oscar Tang, Li-En Chong, and others in response to the anti-Asian hate and violence. The color yellow was chosen to signal the advent of spring, bringing hope, optimism, and enlightenment. The whistle is a symbol of self-protection and solidarity in our common fight against historical discrimination, anti-Asian violence, and racial profiling. It has a universal purpose - to signal alarm and call for help - for all Americans. The Yellow Whistle carries a simple and yet powerful message: “We Belong.” Over 800,000 Yellow Whistles have been distributed across the country to date. It continues as a symbol of hope, strength, and resilience for all Americans. References and Links The Yellow Whistle website: https://www.theyellowwhistle.org/ 2021/09/05 Axios: How the yellow whistle became a symbol against anti-Asian hate Keeping Up with History and Education for the Next Generations “Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.” Effectively incorporating the lessons from the China Initiative into education for future generations demands a multifaceted strategy that encompasses various key elements, including: Preservation of Facts and Information Development of a Comprehensive Curriculum Application of Interactive Learning Methods Promotion of Dialogue and Reflection Engagement with Communities Commitment to Continued Learning and Adaptation References and Links 2023/03/23 1990 Institute: Exclusion: The Shared Asian American Experience 2022/06/13 Representative Grace Meng: Meng Legislation Seeking to Establish First National Asian Pacific American Museum Signed into Law by President Biden From generation to generation, the Asian Pacific American communities have been resilient in fighting against discrimination and protecting their civil rights. It is a continuing effort that transcends the China Initiative, which again confirms the commitment and determination of the communities from elected officials to organizations and individuals. Previous Next 5. Communities Respond with Resilience

Community Networking This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share. You can use this space to tell users a story about the company or describe a special service it offers. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Explore

Texas state representatives are attempting to stop foreign governments from purchasing Texas agricultural land. January 23, 2023 On January 23, 2023, Texas Representative Angie Chen Button 陳筱玲 announnced that she has joined State Representatives Cody Harris and Jacey Jetton in support of House Bill 1075 , recently filed legislation that would prohibit foreign governments or any entity owned or controlled by a foreign government from purchasing agricultural land in Texas. "Like so many other Texans who immigrated here for a better life, I came to America because it afforded me new opportunities, including the right to own property and freely purchase a safe and stable home in which to rase my family. This is a right that all Texans, regardless of race, color, or creed, should have," stated State Representative Angie Chen Button. Under HB 1075 by Rep. Harris, all individuals and American-owned businesses will maintain their right to purchase ag property in the State of Texas. As filed, the legislation applies to all foreign governments or government-controlled entities equally. On January 23, 2023, Texas Senate Bill 552 was introduced. The title of the bill is "Relating to prohibiting contracts or other agreements with certain foreign-owned companies in connection with agricultural land." Texas state representatives are attempting to stop foreign governments from purchasing Texas agricultural land. Previous Next Texas House Bill 1075 and Senate Bill 552