Feng Tao, a chemistry professor at the University of Kansas, was the first academic arrested under the Trump-era China Initiative for allegedly concealing ties to a Chinese university while conducting federal research. After five years, a federal appeals court overturned his conviction, but he has not been reinstated and is suing the university for wrongful termination, citing racial discrimination. The case highlights ongoing concerns over racial profiling and the chilling effect on academics of Chinese descent within U.S. institutions. Critics argue that the China Initiative disproportionately targeted these scholars without evidence of espionage.
The nightmare for the chemistry professor appears to be coming to an end.
Five years have elapsed since Feng Tao, known as Franklin, was escorted from his home in Lawrence, Kansas, by F.B.I. agents. He was the first professor arrested under a Trump-era initiative designed to combat Chinese economic espionage, facing allegations of concealing his connections to a Chinese university while engaged in federally funded research at the University of Kansas, where he held a tenured position.
This past July, he achieved a legal victory. A federal appeals court overturned the last conviction associated with his case. His wife, Hong Peng, recounted in an interview her hope that her husband could finally return to his laboratory, allowing their family to regain some form of normalcy.
Yet, the University of Kansas has yet to reinstate him.
Dr. Tao, a Chinese national and permanent resident of the U.S., is now pursuing legal action against his former employer for wrongful termination. He has alleged that the university illegally surveilled him for federal investigators and breached its own faculty disciplinary rules by dismissing him prior to the conclusion of his criminal proceedings.
“The university allowed itself to partake in fearmongering and racially charged witch hunts,” stated a complaint filed by Dr. Tao’s legal team in January in a Kansas federal court.
The University of Kansas has not provided any comments in response to inquiries.
Dr. Tao’s ordeal illustrates how, over three years since the Justice Department officially concluded the Trump-era program known as the China Initiative, its repercussions continue to resonate among professors and researchers of Chinese descent.
During the three years the initiative operated, the F.B.I. launched at least a dozen cases against universities or research institutions, predominantly involving scholars of Chinese heritage. None of these cases led to charges related to economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, or intellectual property.
Critics claimed the program unfairly targeted scientists based on their ethnicity and overstepped by conflating policy violations with more serious crimes, such as espionage. Many prosecutions of academics of Chinese descent ultimately fell apart.
Concerns are mounting that the China Initiative could be reinstated should a second Trump administration occur.
Congress is currently evaluating an appropriations bill that would provide funding for a Justice Department initiative focused on addressing Chinese espionage, including in academic settings. Recently, Republican lawmakers reintroduced legislation aimed at preventing Chinese espionage by establishing a “CCP Initiative” — referring to the Chinese Communist Party — under the Justice Department.
“President Joe Biden irresponsibly terminated the China Initiative that President Trump implemented during his first term,” said Senator Rick Scott of Florida, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Now, President Trump is stepping back in to hold Communist China fully accountable for its exploitation of the United States.”
There is a consensus that the Chinese government has attempted to steal American technology, including through recruiting overseas scientists.
Collaborations between Chinese entities and U.S.-funded researchers and universities have also played a role in accelerating Beijing’s advancements in areas such as hypersonics and nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, according to a report released last fall by a House committee examining threats from China.
U.S. universities have disputed aspects of that report but have nonetheless started to curtail partnerships with Chinese institutions. In January, the University of Michigan ended its joint collaboration with a Chinese university.
Lawmakers have also expressed worries about the significant number of Chinese students pursuing degrees in science and engineering at American universities, sometimes utilizing rhetoric deemed as fearmongering.
“The difference is, Chinese students studying here in the U.S. are not focusing on ancient Greek history — they are engaged in STEM and national security topics,” remarked Senator James Risch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in January. “Whether they realize it or not, each one of them is an agent of the Chinese Communist Party.”
Critics argue that resources could be better targeted towards tackling genuine threats of Chinese espionage. Such initiatives might also backfire on U.S. national security by potentially accelerating the departure of talent essential for maintaining a scientific and technological edge over China.
“There are legitimate threats that warrant attention, but we should address these issues with precision rather than using a blunt instrument,” stated Gisela Perez Kusakawa, executive director of the Asian American Scholar Forum, an advocacy organization based in New York.
A 2022 survey of scholars of Chinese descent indicated that 45 percent of respondents who had previously secured federal grants said they would refrain from doing so in the future. In interviews, many expressed concerns about being subjected to unwarranted racial profiling.
The quantity of academic collaborations between U.S. researchers and their Chinese counterparts has decreased since 2017. There are fears that broad restrictions on prospective research partnerships, similar to those suggested by House Republicans in their autumn report, could isolate American scientists from fields where China currently leads, such as materials science, hypersonics, and nanotechnology.
Caroline Wagner, a professor of public policy at Ohio State University who advises the government on research security, noted that due to the inherently open nature of scientific research, attempts to block China from acquiring certain technologies could ultimately be “shortsighted.”
Federal funding entities and institutions have recently made efforts to specify which connections academics need to disclose, an initiative Dr. Wagner described as a positive step forward.
“I’m not certain there’s a continued need for the China Initiative now that all this infrastructure is being established,” she mentioned.
Critics assert that Dr. Tao’s situation is indicative of how issues of integrity in academic research have been misused to bolster claims of espionage. Raised in a village in southwestern China, Dr. Tao emigrated to the United States in 2002 to pursue a Ph.D. in chemistry at Princeton University. After holding various positions at different universities, he was recruited to the University of Kansas in 2014 for a tenured faculty role.
Recognized by colleagues for his strong dedication, Dr. Tao continued to publish numerous papers, even while suspended without pay amid allegations. However, he has also accrued substantial legal expenses amounting to millions of dollars.
In his lawsuit against the university, he claims the F.B.I. initiated its investigation following a false accusation by a disgruntled visiting scholar who alleged Dr. Tao was a spy. During the investigation, authorities uncovered a job offer from Fuzhou University in southern China that Dr. Tao had not disclosed to the university.
Dr. Tao did travel to China to establish a laboratory and recruit staff for the university, while stating to University of Kansas officials that he was in Germany. However, he informed the officials that he had no disclosures to make since he neither received compensation nor signed an employment contract with Fuzhou University.
Regardless, prosecutors alleged that Dr. Tao committed fraud by concealing the job offer and his collaboration with the Chinese institution from both the university and two funding agencies, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.
A jury convicted him of three counts of wire fraud and a count of making a false statement. However, in 2022, a federal judge overturned the fraud convictions, citing a lack of evidence showing that Dr. Tao had received any money for his work in China.
“This is not an espionage case,” declared U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson. “If it were, there was absolutely no evidence presented to substantiate that.”
In 2024, a federal appeals court annulled the remaining count of making a false statement, asserting that Dr. Tao’s failure to disclose did not impact any actual funding decisions.
In his legal action to regain his position, Dr. Tao has alleged that the university engaged in racial discrimination, claiming that other professors of different ethnic backgrounds experienced no termination despite similar undisclosed engagements with foreign universities. The lawsuit contends that the university violated its own regulations by not conducting a hearing regarding his employment status.
Alongside reinstatement, Dr. Tao is seeking compensation for lost wages, attorney fees, and damages for emotional distress and harm to his reputation.
“We cannot choose the country we are born in or where we come from,” stated Dr. Tao’s wife, an American citizen. “What we have endured is sheer racial profiling.”