Academics, elected officials, and civil rights groups across the country are raising concerns about the nomination of Casey Arrowood to be US Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. July 29, 2022 Sign the campaign to oppose Arrowood's nomination The White House announced the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be US Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee on July 29, 2022. The Senate Judiciary Committee logged the nomination as PN2444 on August 1, 2022. Academics, elected officials, civil rights groups, and community organizations across the country have raised grave concerns about this nomination - It will further erode public trust in our judicial system and increase the chilling effect on U.S. science and technology. Mr. Arrowood was the lead prosecutor of University of Tennessee Professor Anming Hu , an internationally-renown nanotechnology expert and the first academic to go to trial under the now-defunct “ China Initiative. ” Court testimonies and documents show that Professor Hu was subject to a two-year Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) investigation started by a Google search , not a criminal predicate. Professor Hu was fired by the University of Tennessee at Knoxville based on misleading and false information provided by the government. When the false allegation that Professor Hu spied for China could not be supported by facts and evidence, he was pressed to spy on China for the U.S. government. After Professor Hu refused, Mr. Arrowood mounted a wire fraud case against Professor Hu. The jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. On June 17, 2021, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Ted Lieu, Mondaire Jones, and Pramila Jayapal, referred the case to the Inspector General at the Department of Justice for review out of concerns of alleged misconduct of the FBI in Professor Hu’s case. Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system. According to a media report , a member of the all-white jury entered the 2021 trial assuming that the government handled the case with honesty and integrity. At the end of the mistrial, she concluded publicly that it was “the most ridiculous case” and “if this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” Instead of reviewing his weak case and acting in the interests of justice, Mr. Arrowood pursued a retrial of Professor Hu. In the order to acquit Professor Hu of all charges in the indictment, Judge Thomas Varlan ruled that the government's evidence, even if given in the light most favorable to the government, would be clearly insufficient for a rational jury to convict Professor Hu of the crimes alleged. Despite the judge's ruling, the unjust prosecution forever changed the lives of Professor Hu and his family. To this day, Professor Hu describes that period as "the darkest time of [his] life" as he and his family endured financial instability, traumas, family separation, and a long battle for justice. The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant, and scientific communities. It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from years of prosecution and targeting of Asian Americans and immigrants during and before the "China Initiative." Our communities continue to work towards justice and ensuring substantive reforms to end the targeting and profiling of Asian Americans and immigrants. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust. His wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation. In an exclusive interview with Tennessee Lookout on August 11, 2022, Professor Hu called for President Joe Biden to withdraw the nomination of Mr. Arrowood. “My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.” On August 20, 2022, Professor Hu and his family wrote to the White House requesting President Biden to rescind the nomination of Mr. Arrowood. Professor Hu cited four explanations for his objection: As the leading prosecutor, Mr. Arrowood should have stopped this wrongful investigation and never brought this case forward for prosecution. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. Arrowood himself did not understand the law that he was prosecuting. This wrongful prosecution created a strong chilling effect among the Chinese American community. This nomination has harmed the reputation of the U.S. government. APA Justice , Asian American Scholar Forum , Tennessee Chinese American Alliance , and United Chinese Americans launched this nationwide campaign to support Professor Hu and oppose the nomination of Mr. Arrowood. We give voice to Asian Americans and immigrants, the scientific and academic community, and to the impacted persons and their families. We call for the White House to withdraw the nomination, and the Senate Judiciary Committee to take no action on the nomination before a thporugh investigation and a hearing have been completed. We will continue to collect organizational and individual co-signers until there is an end to the nomination of Mr. Arrowood. Please help spread the word if you have already signed on and fill out the form here if you have not yet done so: https://bit.ly/OpposeArrowoodNomination Please help spread the word about this campaign widely. We also encourage organizations and individuals to send their own letters directly to the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Email contact@apajustice.org if you have any questions or comments. Note : Organizers of the campaign retain the right to decide on the final co-signers to the letters. Please sign on to the campaign here: https://bit.ly/OpposeArrowoodNomination 2022/11/10 Committee of 100: Committee of 100 Expresses Concerns Over Mr. Casey Arrowood Being Nominated to Serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. http://bit.ly/3EBDpEy 2022/11/06 Knox News: 'I want him voted down': Professor wrongly accused of spying fights prosecutor's promotion. https://bit.ly/3UDuYgZ 2022/09/06 Coalition letter to President Biden requesting the withdrawal of the nomination of Casey Arrowood. https://bit.ly/3KTWGTm 2022/09/06 Coalition letter to Senate Judiciary Committee requesting no action on the nomination of Casey Arrowood before thorough review. https://bit.ly/3KSy79l 2022/09/02 Department of Justice: Response to June 17, 2021, Request for Investigation. https://bit.ly/3rISqgJ 2022/08/31 Anming Hu letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting rejection of Arrowood nomination. https://bit.ly/3RezeT6 2022/08/24 APA Justice Newsletter: Special Edition on the Campaign to Oppose the Nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood. https://bit.ly/3ckMgPI 2022/08/22 Draft letter to President Biden to withdraw the nomination of Casey Arrowood. https://bit.ly/3T7yeRN 2022/08/20 Anming Hu letter to the White House requesting withdrawal of Arrowood nomination. https://bit.ly/3wizTum 2022/08/31 Tennessee Lookout: Asian American groups urge rejection of nominee for U.S. Attorney in Tennessee’s Eastern District . https://bit.ly/3CIVj7T 2022/08/11 Tennessee Lookout: Falsely accused University of Tennessee professor: Biden should rescind U.S. Attorney nomination. https://bit.ly/3C1YiYv Academics, elected officials, and civil rights groups across the country are raising concerns about the nomination of Casey Arrowood to be US Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Previous Next Campaign to Oppose The Nomination of Casey Arrowood

On January 5, 2021, a coalition of organizations and individuals wrote to President-elect Joe Biden, requesting him to end the China Initiative and take steps to combat racial profiling. Two weeks later, the indictment of MIT Professor Gang Chen ignited the “We Are All Gang Chen” movement. Between September 2020 and June 2021, five organizations partnered to produce a series of five educational webinars to raise nationwide awareness about the China Initiative. January 5, 2021 Table of Contents Overview “We are All Gang Chen” AAJC Delivered 30,000 Signatures to The White House Education Webinar Series to Raise Awareness Partners of the Webinar Series Links and References Overview On January 5, 2021, a group of community organizations, advocacy groups, science associations, and individuals sent a letter to President-elect Joe Biden urging the incoming administration to end the Justice Department’s “China Initiative” and take further steps to combat the pervasive racial bias and targeting of Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists, researchers, and students by the federal government. Among the signatories are people who have been directly impacted by the government’s unjust prosecutions of Asian Americans. The letter, spearheaded by the Asian Americans Advancing Justice affiliation, Brennan Center for Justice, and APA Justice Task Force, denounces the “China Initiative” for discriminatory investigations and prosecutions of Asian Americans and Asian immigrants, particularly those of Chinese descent working in fields of science. Many of the investigations and prosecutions under this initiative target people with any “nexus to China” rather than on evidence of economic espionage as it purports to do, which has revealed a sharp rise in the profiling and targeting of Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists and researchers. Even after not finding any evidence of espionage, federal prosecutors are charging many Asian Americans and Asian immigrants with federal crimes based on administrative errors or minor offenses such as failing to disclose information to universities or research institutions and other activities under the pretext of combating economic espionage. As a result, Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists, researchers, and scholars are ensnared by overzealous prosecutions riddled with racial bias that are ruining careers and leaving lives in shambles. The letter includes a set of recommendations, which first calls for an immediate end to the “China Initiative” and a complete review of all prosecutions and investigations closed prior to prosecution under the initiative. It also urges the incoming administration to review and take measures throughout the Federal Government’s law enforcement, intelligence, and scientific research funding agencies to combat other patterns of racial bias against Asian American and Asian immigrant scientists and federal employees. The letter and list of organizations and individuals that signed on can be found here . “This latest wave of xenophobia against Asian Americans and Asian immigrants follows a long history of Asian Americans and immigrants being stereotyped as “perpetual foreigners,” scapegoated, and profiled as spies disloyal to the United States,” said John C. Yang, Advancing Justice – AAJC’s president and executive director. “Individual cases of wrongful arrests and prosecutions of Asian American scientists and researchers along with racial rhetoric from public officials reveal that racial bias exists and has translated into real harm for the Asian American community.” "Basing criminal investigations on national origin and Chinese ancestry is unconstitutional and a waste of resources," said Glenn Katon, Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus Director of Litigation. "When the government prosecutes scientists and researchers simply so public officials can look tough, no one is made safer. The Biden administration has the chance to protect Asian Americans and Asian immigrants across this country - they should take it." "Racial profiling has proven to be an ineffective, divisive, and counterproductive law enforcement tactic, and yet the Justice Department inexplicably still promotes its use through programs like the ‘China Initiative'," said Brennan Center fellow Michael German, a former FBI agent. "Pressuring all U.S. Attorneys' Offices to initiate 'China Initiative' cases compels racial, ethnic, and national origin profiling, which undermines our security and the rule of law by targeting investigations based on a person's 'nexus to China' rather than evidence of serious wrongdoing." "Foreign-born scientists of Chinese origin have been an integral part of American innovation and global leadership. Our nation can protect our scientific and research security and successfully compete in the global marketplace for international scientific talent, but not by overzealous, xenophobic targeting of top talents that ruins lives and drives them to foreign countries that have been trying to recruit them unsuccessfully," said Professor Steven Pei, a leader for the APA Justice Task Force. “We Are All Gang Chen” On January 20, 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Gang Chen 陈刚 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. The case stirred controversy from the start, 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. “It is not illegal to collaborate with foreign researchers. It’s illegal to lie about it,” Lelling said. “The allegations in the complaint imply that this was not just about greed, but about loyalty to China.” The indictment of Professor Gang Chen galvanized the Asian American and scientific communities and started the “We Are All Gang Chen” movement. Exactly one year later on January 20, 2022, Judge Patti Saris approved the government's motion to dismiss all charges against Professor Chen. Continuing the “We Are Gang Chen” movement, the Asian American Scholar Forum was founded in 2022 as a nonprofit organization to represent a community of Asian Americans and scholars who are united to promote academic belonging, openness, freedom, and equality for all by bringing their unique perspective, expertise, and concerns of Asian American and immigrant scholars directly to courtrooms, newsrooms, universities, federal agencies, the halls of Congress, and the White House. This is a presentation in Professor Chen’s own words on his experience and lessons learned about the absurdity of the wrongful prosecution: 2022 GangChenSlides .pdf Download PDF • 1.59MB AAJC Delivered 30,000 Signatures to The White House On April 9, 2021, Asian American Advancing Justice | AAJC delivered a petition signed by 29,318 people to the White House, urging President Joe Biden to put an end to the racial profiling of Asian Americans and Asian immigrants and end the Justice Department’s “China Initiative.” Education Webinar Series to Raise Awareness From September 2020 to June 2021, five organizations partnered to produce a series of five educational webinars to raise awareness of a growing number of federal investigations and prosecutions targeting Chinese Americans, Chinese immigrants, and Chinese nationals in the U.S. particularly scientists and researchers under the umbrella of the China Initiative. The webinar series examined the ramifications of the "China Initiative" on the civil rights and security of Chinese Americans, Chinese immigrants, and Chinese Nationals working in the U.S., as well as the consequences for the broader American society. 2020/09/30 First Webinar: The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative ” (video 1:00:15) 2020/12/02 Second Webinar: Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists (video 1:13:35) 2021/02/24 Third Webinar: Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination: Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present (video 1:16:13) 2021/04/28 Fourth Webinar: Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy: How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative" (video 1:05:36) 2021/06/23 Fifth Webinar: The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" (video 1:12:52) Partners of the Webinar Series Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) advocates for an America which all Americans can benefit equally from, and contribute to, the American dream. Our mission is to advance the civil and human rights for Asian Americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all. Advancing Justice | AAJC is a national 501 (c)(3) nonprofit founded in 1991 in Washington, D.C. The APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem to address racial profiling issues and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian American community. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to reform, revitalize – and when necessary, defend – our country's systems of democracy and justice. Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs (APAPA) is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with a diverse membership representing all communities throughout the nation. It strives to inspire, engage, and empower the public about public policy and how to foster future leaders from minority communities to serve at federal, state, and local levels in the government. United Chinese Americans (UCA) has been a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization since 2017. It is a national federation with 12 chapters and over 30 community partners. The UCA is to enrich and empower Chinese American communities through civic participation, political engagement, youth education and development, preservation of heritage and culture, promoting a better understanding between the United States and China, for the well-being of our community, our country, and our world. Jump to: Overview “We are All Gang Chen” AAJC Delivered 30,000 Signatures to The White House Education Webinar Series to Raise Awareness Partners of the Webinar Series On January 5, 2021, a coalition of organizations and individuals wrote to President-elect Joe Biden, requesting him to end the China Initiative and take steps to combat racial profiling. Two weeks later, the indictment of MIT Professor Gang Chen ignited the “We Are All Gang Chen” movement. Between September 2020 and June 2021, five organizations partnered to produce a series of five educational webinars to raise nationwide awareness about the China Initiative. Previous Next 6. Letter to President-Elect Biden to End China Initiative

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session launched the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China. Without a definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case, it drifted to profile and stigmatize Asian Americans and individuals of Asian descent, creating severe damage and a chilling effect on scientific collaboration and harming U.S. leadership in science and technology. November 1, 2018 Table of Contents Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists Links and References Overview On November 1, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session announced the launch of the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). “This Initiative will identify priority Chinese trade theft cases, ensure that we have enough resources dedicated to them, and make sure that we bring them to an appropriate conclusion quickly and effectively.” Sessions said. President Donald Trump fired Sessions less than a week later, but the China Initiative remained in operation for 1,210 days until it was ended by the Joe Biden Administration on February 23, 2022. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had no definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case. DOJ created an online report on what it considered to be Chinese Initiative cases. The online report was last updated on November 19, 2021, three months before the initiative officially ended. According to MIT Technology Review , there have been 77 known China Initiative cases impacting 162 individuals. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the cases, MIT Technology Review concluded that the initiative had increasingly charged academics with “research integrity” issues. Nearly 90% of the defendants charged were of Chinese heritage, lending credence to wide-spread allegations that scientists and researchers of Chinese origin were racially profiled and targeted under the China Initiative despite denials by the government. The DOJ China Initiative cases included only indictments and prosecutions. It did not include investigations or surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and other federal law enforcement agencies and grant agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH ran its own China Initiative. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, NIH’s own “China initiative” had upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. FBI Director’s Profiling Approach The first thunder of the New Red Scare came on February 13, 2018, when FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and targeted all students, scholars and scientists of Chinese origin as a national security threat to the United States. Wray responded to a question in the hearing, “I think in this setting I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country. It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well. It’s across basically every discipline.” Asian American advocates were outraged by Wray’s presumption that every Chinese professor, scientist, and student was guilty of collecting intelligence for the Chinese government until proven innocent. Conflating the stereotype of “perpetual foreigners” and the loyalty of Asian Americans to the United States, Wray pledged to pursue a “whole-of-society” approach to address the threat of China. His use of the term “non-traditional collectors” for spies parallelled “thousand grains of sand” during the prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee and “fifth column” in referral to Japanese Americans during World War II. Qian Xuesen, also known as Hsue-shen Tsien, a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, became a victim of the Second Red Scare during the Cold War era, facing accusations of “communist sympathies” despite his contributions to American scientific advancement. Fourteen Asian American community organizations wrote to Wray on March 1, 2018, and called for “an opportunity to discuss how well-intentioned public policies might nonetheless lead to troubling issues of potential bias, racial profiling, and wrongful prosecution.” Wray never responded to the letter. References and Links Wikipedia: Qian Xuesen 2020/02/02 The Intercept: The FBI’s China Obsession - The U.S. Government Secretly Spied on Chinese American Scientists, Upending Lives and Paving the Way for Decades of Discrimination 2019/12/31 Bloomberg: As China Anxiety Rises in U.S., Fears of New Red Scare Emerge 2019/07/20 New York Times: A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington 2018/03/23 Huffington Post: FBI Director Defends Remarks That Chinese People In U.S. Pose Threats 2018/03/08 Washington Post Opinion: America’s new — and senseless — Red Scare 2018/03/01 14 Coalition Organizations: Coalition letter to FBI Director Wray 2018/03/01 Committee of 100: Community Organizations Call for Meeting with FBI Director Christopher Wray Regarding Profiling of Students, Scholars, and Scientists with Chinese Origins 2018/02/27 Asia Times: FBI director’s grave mistake on targeting Chinese-Americans 2018/02/16 纽约都市新闻网: 华裔议员严厉谴责Rubio和Wray针对中国学生的极端言论 2018/02/15 CAPAC: CAPAC Members on Rubio and Wray’s Remarks Singling Out Chinese Students as National Security Threats 2018/02/14 Inside Higher Ed: The Chinese Student Threat? 2018/02/13 Advancing Justice | AAJC: FBI Director’s Shock Claim: Chinese Students Are a Potential Threat 2018/02/13 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Global Threats and National Security 2016/05/25 60 Minutes: Collateral Damage 2015/05/10 New York Times: Accused of Spying for China, Until She Wasn’t 2000/09/14 New York Times: Statement by Judge in Los Alamos Case, With Apology for Abuse of Power . 1999/12/11 Washington Post: China Prefers the Sand to the Moles 1964/02/02 New York Times: F.B.I. Chief Warns of Red China Spies NIH’s Own “China Initiative” According to the Science Magazine, Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent a missive to more than 10,000 institutions on August 20, 2018, asserting that "threats to the integrity of U.S. biomedical research exist" and highlighted the failure to disclose "substantial resources from other organizations, including foreign governments." Collins wrote that "in the weeks and months ahead you may be hearing from [NIH] regarding … requests about specific … personnel from your institution." Dubbed as NIH’s own “China Initiative,” NIH began sending letters to dozens of major U.S. research universities in March 2019, asking them to provide information about specific faculty members with NIH funding who are believed to have links to foreign governments that NIH did not know about. Universities reportedly scrambled to respond to the unprecedented queries. Some academic administrators worry the exercise could cast a chill over all types of international scientific collaborations. Others fear that the inquiry may become a vehicle to impugn the loyalty of any faculty member—and especially any foreign-born scientists—who maintain overseas ties. At some institutions, every researcher flagged by NIH was Chinese American. The vaguely worded letters did not contain specific accusations, nor did it explain any aspect of the process. By March 23, 2023, a year after the official end of the China Initiative, Science reported that NIH’s “China initiative” has upended hundreds of lives and destroyed scores of academic careers. In contrast to the very public criminal prosecutions of academic scientists under the China Initiative, NIH’s version was conducted behind closed doors. 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. 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. In only 14 of the 246 cases—a scant 6%—did the institution fail to find any evidence to back up NIH’s suspicions. 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 Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for 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 (UCSD), 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. References and Links 2024/03/29 University of Michigan News: US universities secretly turned their back on Chinese professors under DOJ’s China Initiative 2023/02/23 Science: Pall of Suspicion 2019/03/01 Science: NIH letters asking about undisclosed foreign ties rattle U.S. universities Criminalizing China The name of China Initiative by itself is problematic. "Using 'China' as the glue connecting cases prosecuted under the Initiative's umbrella creates an overinclusive conception of the threat and attaches a criminal taint to entities that possess 'China-ness,' based on PRC nationality, PRC national origin, Chinese ethnicity, or other expressions of connections with 'China.,'" Professor Margaret Lewis wrote in her article "Criminalizing China" in 2020. Her article further contends that, when assessed in light of the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution, it is worrisome that the prosecution and punishment of people and entities rests in part on a connection with “China.” A better path is to discard the “China Initiative” framing, focus on cases’ individual characteristics, and enhance the Department of Justice’s interactions with nongovernmental experts. Margaret K. Lewis, Criminalizing China , 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 145 (2020). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol111/iss1/3 The Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists On November 19, 2020, The China Project produced a video titled “ The China Initiative: The ethnic targeting of Chinese scientists and the subsequent brain drain .” (7:30) The China Project talked to lawyers, academics, and victims of the China Initiative for their perspective. Many Chinese and Chinese American researchers feel that the program has placed a target on their back, and that they are being unfairly targeted for their Chinese ethnicity. There are also critics who say the Initiative has done little more than drive talent away from the U.S. Jump to: Overview FBI Director’s Profiling Approach NIH’s Own “China Initiative” Criminalizing China Ethnic Targeting of Chinese Scientists U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session launched the China Initiative to combat national security threats and economic espionage emanating from the People’s Republic of China. Without a definition of what constitutes a China Initiative case, it drifted to profile and stigmatize Asian Americans and individuals of Asian descent, creating severe damage and a chilling effect on scientific collaboration and harming U.S. leadership in science and technology. Previous Next 1. DOJ launched China Initiative

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

Nearly two years later, a 21-year-old Texas man who attempted to kill an Asian man and his young child has pleaded guilty to federal hate-crime charges. February 24, 2022 On February 24, 2022, the Washington Post published Texas man accused of attacking Asian family over racist coronavirus fears pleads guilty to hate-crime charges . A 21-year-old Texas man, Jose Gomez III, who attempted to kill an Asian man and his young child because he thought they were Chinese — and therefore, he said, responsible for the coronavirus pandemic — has pleaded guilty to federal hate-crime charges. He slashed the 6-year-old boy’s face. “The blade entered millimeters from [the boy’s] right eye, split his right ear, and wrapped around to the back of his skull,” prosecutors said. Gomez then stabbed a White employee who had intervened to stop the attack. Justice Department officials said that while Gomez was pinned down after being subdued, he yelled to the family, “Get out of America!” Gomez later told local authorities that he had never seen the father before but had perceived him as a “threat” because he supposedly “came from the country who started spreading the disease around.” He admitted to trying to kill the father and the 6-year-old in an effort to “stop the threat.” Gomez pleaded guilty to three counts of committing a hate crime and faces a maximum sentence of life in prison and a total of $750,000 in fines. Nearly two years later, a 21-year-old Texas man who attempted to kill an Asian man and his young child has pleaded guilty to federal hate-crime charges. Previous Next Texas man accused of attacking Asian family over racist coronavirus fears pleads guilty to hate-crime charges

June 12, 2020 On June 12, 2020, Science Magazine reported that fifty-four scientists have lost their jobs as a result of NIH probe into foreign ties . Six questions are raised from the report about the National Institute of Health (NIH) investigations 1. Due process? What rights do the scientists have in terms of defense and representation? How are they informed and explained about these rights? How consistent is the decision process from case to case and from institution to institution? Are the standards public and publicized? How well are the scientists informed about these standards? 2. Shift and transparency in policy? As recently as July 1, 2014, current NIH Director Francis Collins spoke in Fudan University in Shanghai to promote international collaboration . This and similar reports have apparently been removed from the NIH website with one exception of this report about NIH leaders celebrate 30 years of research with China in 2009. Why were these reports removed? When did the shift in policy take place and why? How were the scientists notified of the change in policy? 3. How did NIH start these investigations? According to Page 19 of The Cancer Letter on April 26, 2019, Michael Lauer, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, stated that there are three ways to identify potential problems: (a) FBI and other law enforcement agencies, (b) anonymous complaints, and (c) stewardship of NIH program staff. For the targeted 189 scientists at 87 institutions, what is the respective count by these three ways? How is their pattern and distribution similar or different from previous years? 4. Criminalizing science and scientists? If the NIH is under pressure from the FBI and law enforcement to conduct these investigations, does it undermine the standard NIH procedures to deal with scientific ethical and integrity issues that may not be intrinsically criminal? How many of the scientists under NIH investigations conduct open fundamental research and how many on sensitive research that threatens national or economic security? Does their punishment fit the alleged act? What was actually stolen? 5. How will the NIH investigations enhance U.S. leadership in science and technology? Dr. Xifeng Wu was among the first scientists forced to leave MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She is now recognized for her significant contributions to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in China. She is a U.S. citizen. Her family still lives in Houston. How did her departure help U.S. leadership in science and technology? Same question for the 54 scientists. What threats have we mitigated by their departures? 6. Oversight and accountability? Is NIH open to third-party independent audit and review about the standards, process, and decision about these investigations? If so, would NIH cooperate with Congress and scientific/community organizations to conduct such audit, review, and oversight? In the case of Dr. Charlie Lieber, he was not charged as a spy. On February 3, 2020, Science Magazine reported that “[w]hat worries Andrew Lelling, U.S. attorney for the Massachusetts district, is that Lieber was allegedly paid to carry out research in China, which, combined with his failure to disclose those relationships, makes him potentially vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese government to do its bidding at some future point.” Are we punishing a child because one day he may grow up to be a criminal? How far have we deviated from a justice system based on facts and evidence, rather than pretext, for individual prosecutions or investigations? When was the last time the U.S. government targeted a nation and a people for law enforcement? These issues about accountability, oversight, and transparency are at the heart of racial profiling (according to the definition in H.R. 7120 Justice in Policing Act of 2020 ), justice, and fairness concerns for the Asian American community that led to the formation of the APA Justice Task Force in 2015. Previous Next 54 scientists lose their jobs from NIH probe into foreign ties

The NIH and the FBI are targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, including U.S. citizens, searching for a cancer cure. June 13, 2019 On June 13, 2019 Bloomberg Businessweek published The U.S. Is Purging Chinese Cancer Researchers From Top Institutions . The NIH and the FBI are targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, including U.S. citizens, searching for a cancer cure. It includes the first account of what happened to Xifeng Wu. The NIH and the FBI are targeting ethnic Chinese scientists, including U.S. citizens, searching for a cancer cure. Previous Next The U.S. is purging Chinese scientists in a new Red Scare

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’

Yu Zhou, Li Chen Previous Item Next Item

Turab Lookman 特拉伯·鲁克曼 Docket ID: 1:19-cr-01439 District Court, D. New Mexico Date filed: May 22, 2019 Date ended: September 10, 2020 Overview On May 22, 2019, Dr. Turab Lookman was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on three counts of making false statements. Dr. Lookman moved from India to the U.K. at age 13 and later earned a doctorate in theoretical physics from King’s College, University of London. He spent around 20 years as a professor at a Canadian university before joining Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. He became a U.S. citizen in 2008. Dr. Lookman was recognized as a Laboratory Fellow, one of LANL’s highest awards for its scientific staff. He co-authored over 250 scientific papers and two books. He received LANL's Fellows Prize for Outstanding Research in 2009 and the Distinguished Postdoctoral Mentor Award in 2016. He was terminated from LANL following his arrest. Dr. Lookman was charged with falsely denying his involvement with China's Thousand Talents Program, facing up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each false statement to federal investigators. Dr. Lookman’s contact with China came partly through the lab’s collaboration with that country on research projects, such as one aimed at discovering new materials that could support nuclear deterrence and the lab’s energy work. In June 2019, a month after Dr. Lookman’s indictment, the Department of Energy issued an order barring department staff and contractors from involvement in a foreign government's talent recruitment program. Federal prosecutors characterized Dr. Lookman as a serious national security threat due to his high-level security clearance, which granted him access to critical facilities and highly sensitive nuclear secrets. They claimed he "had no loyalty to the U.S." Dr. Lookman's lawyer argued that prosecutors exaggerated his access to classified information, asserting that there was no evidence he had unlawfully obtained or intended to share nuclear weapons secrets with any foreign government. Dr. Lookman initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but In January 2020, he accepted a plea agreement to one count of making a false statement with dismissal of the other two charges. On September 11, 2020, Dr. Lookman was sentenced to five years of probation and a $75,000 fine for providing a false statement to the Department of Energy. He was not allowed to leave New Mexico for the term of his probation. Previous Item Next Item

Xin Wang 王欣 Docket ID: 3:20-cr-00251 District Court, N.D. California Date filed: Jun 22, 2020 Date ended: July 23, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on claimed visa violation, including Dr. Xin Wang. A fifth scientist was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Dr. Xin Wang was issued a multiple entry J1 non-immigrant visa on December 17, 2018. The visa application stated that he was employed by the Air Force Military University and the purpose of his visit was to conduct research neurology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). In his visa application, he stated that he had previously served as an Associate Professor in Medicine in the Chinese Army, also known as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). His listed dates of service for the army were from September 1, 2002 through September 1, 2016. He entered the United States on March 26, 2019. Dr. Xin Wang is alleged to have made fraudulent statements on his visa application. If convicted, he faced a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. On July 23, 2021, DOJ motioned to drop their case against Dr. Xin Wang. U.S. District Judge James Donato granted the motion to dismiss on the same day. A scheduled trial to begin on November 8, 2021, was vacated. Dr. Xin Wang was released from Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California. He had been in jail for the past year. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Dr. Wang were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. Five “Visa Fraud” Cases The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: 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 These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers from affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

Policy Advocacy See what we're doing Working with federal agencies and policy makers to advocate for social justice and rights. Social Justice The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the president on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. OSTP Developments This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item One Subtitle Goes Here This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Two Subtitle Goes Here This is a paragraph. Click to edit and add your own text. Add any information you want to share with users. Change the font, size or scale to get the look you want. Read More Item Three Subtitle Goes Here 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 the Association of American Universities (AAU). The meeting was moderated by Roger Wakimoto, Vice Chancellor for Research, UCLA. It included a 10-minute presentation by Steven and Jeremy 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. Founded in 1900, 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. PROPOSAL TO SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICERS OF THE AAU We suggested four wishes from the Asian American faculty perspective: 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. Dialogue with the AAU Warrantless Surveillance The U.S. Constitution protects its people against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the U.S. government engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of phone calls, text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Information collected under this law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security. Chinese American immigrants and scientific communities, have especially been targets for warrantless surveillance leading to wrongful and unjust prosecutions. Learn more The China Initiative From November 11, 2018 to February 23, 2022, the US national security program created to address economic espionage disproportionately targeted Asian American academics, scientists, and researchers for what were largely administrative errors, harming academic freedom. Learn more See what we've been fighting Advocating for the rights of APA academics, researchers, and scientists. Academic Advocacy