On October 8, China’s Ministry of National Security issued a document that explained the negative impact of the “China Initiative” implemented by the US. The document cited Tan Hongjin, a Chinese scientific researcher working in the US, to expose the unscrupulous methods used by the US authorities to concoct “Chinese espionage” cases and undermine China-US scientific research cooperation. Since the US Department of Justice launched the “China Initiative” in 2018, the investigation and prosecution of Chinese scientists has been controversial. This July, Franklin Tao Feng, the first Chinese-American professor to be indicted under the scheme, finally got his name cleared after a five-year legal battle. However, although the “China Initiative” plan was officially ended in 2022, its scars have not been healed, and discriminatory investigations and charges against Chinese Americans still exist.
In an interview with Global Times (GT) reporters Wang Wenwen and Bai Yunyi, Peter Zeidenberg (Zeidenberg), an attorney who has represented many Chinese Americans in these cases, said that cases involving investigations into potential theft of intellectual property, or trade secrets or economic espionage involving Chinese Americans are always going to be a priority for the Department of Justice, whether they call it the “China Initiative” or not.
GT: You are also Professor Franklin Tao Feng’s attorney, one of the very first scientists charged under the “China Initiative.” Can you talk a bit about this case?
Zeidenberg: The charges lack merit legally and factually. They were initiated because of a disgruntled former student who made up allegations against him because she was angry with him and was trying to extort money from him. When he refused to pay her, she made up stories and went to the FBI. I think it should have been apparent to the FBI to view these claims with suspicion. Instead, they launched a huge investigation into Professor Tao, which nearly destroyed his life. Fortunately, we were able to, after five years of legal fighting, clear all charges. However, the University of Kansas so far has dismissed this and indicated that they are unwilling to rehire him.
GT: How many cases involving Chinese-American scientists have you represented over the years? Were any of your clients accused of “espionage”?
Zeidenberg: Probably more than 50. To be clear, most of them were ultimately not charged, because no charges were merited in the cases. In most cases, we got them to drop the case. None of them were actually charged with espionage, but the investigation was launched because of concerns about espionage.
GT: Have any of the cases you’ve worked on been dismissed due to insufficient evidence?
Zeidenberg: There is insufficient evidence and the legal theory which the government was proceeding on has been found by one court after another to be lacking in merit.
We were able to take the findings from one court and go to a judge in another case and say, look, these types of charges are not under this theory and not supported by the law. And the government eventually agreed with us.
GT: In the case of the “China Initiative,” some Chinese scholars have participated in collaborative projects with Chinese universities. Do you believe participation in these projects justifies prosecution or conviction?
Zeidenberg: Participation in collaborative projects with Chinese universities does not provide a legitimate basis for charges against Chinese scholars. The US government views such participation as highly suspicious and problematic. From my understanding, from talking to my clients, their participation in the program is pretty innocuous, mostly it involves an accolade in a Chinese institution and they can then put it on their website and brag to the public or their peer universities about how many scholars it has. It is also a way to attract other students and other researchers. Whereas the professor himself has extremely low involvement in the program, because in the United States they’re all full-time professors. Usually, what it amounts to is a few weeks over summer or Christmas vacation, where they go to the university and teach a few classes or do some seminars or conferences. They do extremely low levels of work and they generally don’t get paid much. I think our law enforcement has a lot of misconceptions about how that program is applied in terms of these college professors.
GT: Based on your experience, do you believe there are elements of racial bias in the “China Initiative”?
Zeidenberg: Yes. I think that they’ve got a singular focus on China to the point that they ended up targeting extremely productive and loyal American researchers and scientists who happened to be ethnic Chinese.
GT: How have the careers and personal lives of your clients been affected by the “China Initiative”? Are they still affected today?
Zeidenberg: It’s incredibly stressful. It’s extremely expensive hiring a lawyer to defend them. And it can be devastating to their career, because quite often, even if no charges are brought, the US research entities cut off their grant funding. And if their grant funding is cut off, they aren’t able to maintain their professorships. Therefore, many of these scientists end up relocating to China because all avenues of employment have been cut off to them in the United States.
In my view, the US is acting in a very counterproductive manner.
GT: What is the most difficult part when you defend these scholars?
Zeidenberg: The most difficult thing, believe it or not, is that most of these clients are unable to afford legal help. College professors here are not rich. And a legal defense in the United States is extremely expensive. Franklin Tao’s case cost over $2 million to defend. It went on for five years. He makes a modest amount of money. He has a family and a home. Very few people can afford to pay a legal bill like that. You have to be a tech entrepreneur or an investment banker or work in finance.
GT: Although the “China Initiative” officially ended two years ago, there have been reports suggesting that cases initiated under this program are still ongoing. Is that consistent with what you have observed? Are any of the cases you are handling still ongoing?
Zeidenberg: Criminal cases against college professors seem to have stopped. That’s a welcome change. Cases involving investigations into potential theft of intellectual property, or trade secrets or economic espionage involving Chinese Americans are always going to be a priority for the Department of Justice, whether they call it the “China Initiative” or not.
