Harvard University Advises Avoiding Logan Airport
Separate Guidance Issued for Iranian and Chinese Students
AI and Engineering Majors Also Urged to Exercise Caution

Harvard University has reportedly advised international students preparing to enter the United States to avoid using Boston’s Logan International Airport and instead opt for alternatives such as JFK Airport in New York. In particular, the university has urged students of Chinese and Iranian nationality to exercise special caution, citing potentially stricter immigration screening.

"Social Media and Electronic Devices May Be Checked, Possibly by AI"

According to the Times of India (TOI) on July 8 (local time), Harvard’s Office of International Education and its legal support team recently held a closed online briefing for international students. In the session, they stated, “Immigration screening at Logan Airport has involved high levels of inspection and device checks, so it may be better to enter the country via JFK, Chicago O’Hare, or Los Angeles International Airport.” The session was hosted by Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic.

During the briefing, Harvard explained that “The U.S. State Department may review social media accounts during the visa screening process, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may access data stored on electronic devices such as mobile phones and laptops. Admission may be denied based on the content stored on these devices.” The university added, “It is unclear whether such analysis is conducted by humans or by artificial intelligence (AI),” and warned that “content supporting Palestine, expressing antisemitic or anti-American sentiments, or even minor past legal issues could influence immigration decisions.” However, they cautioned against fully resetting devices before departure, as this could arouse further suspicion.

According to attendees, Jason Corral, an attorney on Harvard’s legal team, stated, “Iranian students in particular have often faced unusually intense screening at Logan Airport,” and added, “Though we don’t have definitive evidence, JFK, Chicago, or LA airports may be better alternatives.” Harvard further emphasized that students studying in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) or AI-related fields may be subject to particularly sensitive questioning during immigration procedures.

Protecting International Students Amid Tensions with Trump Administration

This guidance comes amid ongoing tensions between Harvard University and former President Donald Trump’s administration. During his first term, Trump consistently criticized Harvard’s international student recruitment programs, diversity policies, and political orientation. More recently, his administration moved to cancel approximately $2.6 billion in federal research funding and questioned the university’s tax-exempt status, continuing to apply pressure.

In May, Trump proposed that the percentage of international students at Harvard should be limited to around 15%, instead of the current 31%. According to Harvard, international students currently make up about 27% of its 6,800 enrolled students. This figure has steadily risen from 19.6% in 2006, but remains below Trump’s proposed threshold. However, if fellowship and non-degree program participants are included, the total number of international students on campus exceeds 10,000.

That same month, the U.S. State Department also began canceling visas for Chinese students. On May 28, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced via X (formerly Twitter), “The United States has begun canceling visas for Chinese students,” specifically targeting those affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or engaged in sensitive research areas. On the same day, the State Department issued a statement under Rubio’s name titled “A New Visa Policy That Puts America First, Not China,” declaring cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security on the issue.

The statement followed a directive instructing U.S. embassies worldwide to suspend visa interviews for international students. Analysts interpreted the focus on China as connected to broader issues such as trade disputes. Axios, citing a senior U.S. official, reported, “Rubio’s announcement occurred simultaneously with U.S.-China trade negotiations,” adding, “Everything is interconnected.” The outlet noted that “Secretary Rubio has long been a China hawk,” and recalled his efforts in 2018 as a U.S. Senator to successfully ban Confucius Institutes—Chinese government-funded cultural centers—from Florida’s universities.

China: “Political Discrimination, Strong Opposition”

In response, the Chinese government immediately condemned the measures as political discrimination. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated, “The U.S. is using ideology and national security as pretexts to arbitrarily cancel Chinese student visas, severely infringing on their legitimate rights and interests.” She warned that such actions would “significantly disrupt normal cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries.” Mao continued, “China strongly opposes this and has lodged a diplomatic protest with the U.S.,” and added, “This politically discriminatory act reveals the hypocrisy behind the U.S.’s so-called values of ‘freedom and openness’ and further damages its own national image and credibility.”

China’s Ministry of Education also issued a travel warning concerning study in the United States. In particular, the ministry cited a recent bill passed by the Ohio House of Representatives, stating that it included “anti-China provisions.” It advised that “students considering studying in the affected states should conduct a thorough safety risk assessment.” Although the bill has not yet taken effect—pending approval by the state Senate and signature by Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican aligned with Trump—Republican lawmakers in Ohio issued a statement following the bill’s passage in the House, emphasizing their intent to “strengthen protections against foreign influence and safeguard Ohio’s institutions from interference by the People’s Republic of China.”

This is not the first time that the U.S. Congress has taken measures to restrict the entry of Chinese students on national security grounds. The most recent example involved letters sent by the House of Representatives to six U.S. universities, including Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon University, requesting policy details concerning Chinese students. The requested information reportedly included full lists of Chinese nationals enrolled, the names of their previous institutions, sources of tuition funding, and the types of research and academic programs in which they are participating.

"New Military Academies in China Draw Intense Interest from Youth"
Once Dismissive Due to 'Poor Conditions,' Young Chinese Now Reconsider Enlistment
Soaring Unemployment Triggers Shift in Perception of Military Careers

Perceptions of military academies among Chinese youth are rapidly shifting. As the job market freezes and unemployment soars, a once-avoided career as a soldier is emerging as an attractive option.

China’s Newly Established Military Academies Launched Amidst Surging Youth Interest

On June 23, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that rising youth unemployment and various government incentives are driving growing interest among Chinese youth in joining the People's Liberation Army (PLA). According to the report, China’s Ministry of National Defense announced last month the establishment of three new military academies, which will begin recruiting high school graduates this summer. A related video garnered over 8 million views on the social media platform Weibo.

The newly established academies are: The Army Support College in Hefei, Anhui Province; The Information Support Force Engineering University in Wuhan, Hubei Province; and The Joint Logistics Support Force Engineering University in Chongqing

These institutions were formed by restructuring and consolidating divisions within existing military schools to modernize China’s military organization and talent cultivation system. Specifically:

- The Army Support College combines the former Armored Forces Academy and the Artillery and Air Defense Academy.

- The Information Support Force Engineering University merges the Information and Communication Department of the National University of Defense Technology with the Communication College of the Army Engineering University.

- The Joint Logistics Support Force Engineering University brings together the Army Logistics Academy, Military Transportation University, and its affiliated Automotive Academy.

The Information Support Force Engineering University will serve as the core training institution for the newly formed Information Support Force (ISF), established in April 2023. The school is expected to focus on cultivating talent with expertise in cutting-edge technologies such as drones, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). Meanwhile, the Joint Logistics Support Force at Engineering University aims to integrate logistics and transport systems across the country, enabling rapid joint operations and enhancing mobility. With logistics and support operations playing an increasingly critical role in modern warfare, the initiative seeks to develop both responsive structures and personnel capable of adapting to evolving battlefield conditions.

Until a few years ago, Military Academies Once Struggled with Enrollment

What’s particularly notable is that only a few years ago, military service was widely regarded as an undesirable career choice among Chinese youth. Since the Chinese Communist Party initiated military reforms in 2016, the number of student slots at China’s 27 military academies has steadily increased. From 2018 to 2021, the schools recruited an average of 13,000 students annually, with that number increasing by about 2,000 per year in both 2022 and 2023.

Yet despite the expanded capacity, applications remained sluggish. In 2023, even as the national college entrance exam (gaokao) drew a record-breaking 12.91 million test-takers, many military academies still failed to fill their quotas. Moreover, the gaokao scores of applicants to military institutions dropped significantly compared to previous years. For example, the National University of Defense Technology, often dubbed “the Tsinghua of the PLA," had a minimum admission score of only 514. Other institutions, such as the Army Service College and the Special Operations Academy, had minimum scores of 463 and below 400, respectively, on a scale where the maximum is 750.

This general avoidance of military academies stemmed largely from societal attitudes and concerns about compensation. Yang Taiyuan, a researcher at the Center for Integrated Science and Technology Strategy at Danjiang University, explained: “Although PLA salaries have risen in recent years, they are still low compared to incomes in more economically developed regions. This disparity creates a sense of disconnect between the standard of living at military academies and civilian life, making the military path less appealing to young people.”

He added that academic specialization also plays a role in shaping future prospects: “If a cadet is not in a science or technology-related field, they are more likely to be stationed in remote or border regions, where promotion opportunities are more limited.”

China’s Job Market on Shaky Ground

The abrupt shift in perception stems from growing instability in China’s job market. As attractive employment opportunities dwindle, the advantages of public-sector jobs, including military service, are becoming increasingly prominent. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), as of last month, the unemployment rate among urban youth aged 16 to 24 (excluding students) stood at 14.9%. This marked a 0.9 percentage point drop from the previous month’s 15.8%, yet remained higher than the 14.2% recorded a year earlier.

However, many analysts believe that China’s real youth unemployment rate significantly exceeds the official figures. Critics argue that the methodology used by the Chinese government to calculate youth unemployment is fundamentally flawed. Notably, in June 2023, when the youth unemployment rate hit a record 21.3%, the NBS suspended publication of the data for six months, citing a need to revise its methodology. Since the following January, the bureau has excluded students from the base population used to calculate the unemployment rate.

This approach contradicts international standards set by the International Labour Organization (ILO), which guide how labor statistics should be compiled. According to ILO guidelines, high school and university students who are seeking work or employed part-time are to be counted as part of the labor force, while only full-time students not actively seeking employment are excluded.

The criteria used to distinguish between employed and unemployed individuals have also come under scrutiny. Currently, the NBS classifies anyone aged 16 or older who worked for at least one hour during the past week for wages or business income as "employed." In effect, someone who worked just one hour of part-time labor in a week would be excluded from unemployment statistics. Critics argue this definition fails to capture the true earning conditions of workers and can lead to statistical distortion, where official economic data masks the underlying economic reality.

U.S. and China Reach Agreement on Key Issues
Did Rare Earth Export Disruptions Drive the Deal?
Attracting Chinese Students: Balancing Risk and Reward

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that an agreement has been reached regarding China’s supply of rare earth elements to the United States and the admission of Chinese students to U.S. universities. Following last month’s Geneva talks—after which both sides exchanged retaliatory measures and continued a precarious diplomatic balancing act—the two countries have now managed to carve out a potential pause through a recent economic dialogue.

Signs of Easing Tensions Between U.S. and China

On June 11 (local time), U.S. President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social: “We’ve concluded negotiations with China, pending final approval from President Xi and myself. All rare earth elements and permanent magnets we need will be pre-supplied by China.” He added, “This includes everything we’ve agreed to supply China in return, including allowing Chinese students to study at American universities.”

This statement suggests that during the second day of the U.S.-China Economic Dialogue held in London the previous day, the two sides reached a tentative agreement. It appears to include lifting China’s export restrictions on rare earths to the U.S.—a key American demand—and reversing the U.S. policy of canceling student visas for Chinese nationals—Beijing’s priority issue.

However, Trump made no mention of whether any consensus had been reached regarding China’s request to ease U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors, one of the more contentious and strategically sensitive issues in the ongoing bilateral rivalry. He did, however, cite specific tariff numbers. “We’ll each impose a 55% tariff. China will receive 10%,”
he wrote—suggesting an upward revision of the U.S. tariff rate on Chinese goods by 25 percentage points, from the previously agreed 30%. Last month, the two sides had agreed during a high-level meeting in Geneva to lower U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports to 30% and China’s tariffs on U.S. goods to 10%.

The Power of China’s Rare Earth Export Restrictions

Rare earths emerged as a central topic in the talks due to the mounting disruption in U.S. domestic industries caused by China’s export curbs. In response to Trump’s earlier tariff hikes, Beijing restricted rare earth exports to the U.S. in April, including key rare earth permanent magnets used in high-tech manufacturing. Even after the Geneva talks, China maintained these controls.

The shortage of rare earths is severely damaging to critical industries, including automotive, robotics, and defense. Permanent magnets made from rare earths are essential components in hybrid and electric vehicle motors, catalytic converters, seat adjusters, and more. A sustained supply disruption could paralyze production across multiple sectors. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), which represents the U.S. auto industry, reportedly sent a confidential letter to the U.S. government last month warning of major damage due to China’s restrictions.

In the letter, AAI stated: “Without reliable access to rare earth magnets, suppliers will be unable to manufacture essential components including automatic transmissions, throttle bodies, alternators, various motors, sensors, seat belts, speakers, lighting systems, power steering, and cameras.” The group warned that in extreme cases, companies might face production cuts or even assembly line shutdowns. AAI includes major global automakers such as General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia.

Why the U.S. Can't Push Chinese Students Out

One of the key issues in recent U.S.-China negotiations has been the revocation of U.S. visas for Chinese students, which has drawn attention following a series of hardline statements from the American government. On May 28, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement titled “The New Visa Policy Will Prioritize America Over China”, asserting that under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Homeland Security would actively cancel visas for Chinese students—especially those linked to the Chinese Communist Party or engaged in sensitive fields of research. He further announced plans to tighten screening standards for all future visa applications from China and Hong Kong, effectively suggesting that Chinese students in the U.S. are being viewed as potential spies.

Some observers consider this precaution reasonable. Incidents involving Chinese students and researchers have repeatedly sparked controversy in the U.S. A recent case involved two Chinese nationals attempting to smuggle pathogenic fungal material into the country. On June 4, the FBI indicted a Chinese male in his 30s and his girlfriend, a researcher at the University of Michigan, for illegally importing a toxic fungus capable of damaging crops and harming human health.

According to the FBI, the male suspect was caught at Detroit Airport in July last year with multiple plastic bags, wrapped in tissue, containing the fungal substance hidden in his luggage. Initially denying knowledge of the contents, he later admitted it was intended for use in a university lab.

Subsequent analysis confirmed that the substance was Fusarium graminearum, a fungus known to cause head blight, a devastating disease in wheat, barley, corn, and rice. The U.S. Attorney's Office for Eastern Michigan noted that the fungus is classified as a potential agricultural bioterrorism agent, and the suspects had neither applied for nor received import authorization from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Despite such risks, the U.S. appears reluctant to completely shut out Chinese students, primarily due to their economic significance. According to a 2023–2024 report by the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA), international students contributed USD 43 billion to the U.S. economy through tuition, housing, and living expenses. Their presence also supported 378,175 American jobs.

As of the 2023–2024 academic year, the number of international students in the U.S. under F and M visas reached 1,126,690. Among them, Chinese students made up about 25%, underscoring their dominant share. In short, excluding Chinese students would leave a gaping hole in the U.S. higher education system and economy. Their contributions—both financially and intellectually—make it difficult for the U.S. to carry out a wholesale expulsion, despite rising geopolitical and security concerns.

Japan Expands Financial Support for Foreign Talent Recruitment Using ¥10 Trillion University Fund
Tohoku University and Other International Excellent Research Universities to Receive Increased Support
France, UK, and Spain Launch Independent Talent Recruitment Strategies Across Europe

The global scientific community is undergoing a tectonic shift. Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, sweeping policy changes in the United States have triggered unease within academic and research institutions. Restrictions on foreign students, skepticism toward climate science, and reduced support for international collaboration have combined to erode America’s long-standing status as a safe haven for scientific talent. In response, countries across the globe are moving decisively to capture the brainpower that is now, perhaps for the first time in decades, reconsidering its American future. Leading this charge is Japan, which has launched a multi-pronged, government-backed campaign to attract top researchers and international students who are disillusioned by U.S. policies. Alongside Japan, European countries and Canada are also rolling out bold national strategies to welcome the emerging wave of scientific migrants.

Japan Strengthens 'International Brain Circulation' Strategy

On June 4, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba chaired the Comprehensive Science, Technology, and Innovation Conference and made clear that Japan sees opportunity in the disruption. Citing widespread concerns about the U.S. research climate under the Trump administration, Ishiba stated that Japan must boost its own scientific capabilities by welcoming foreign researchers through a reinvigorated “international brain circulation” strategy. This vision seeks to go beyond merely avoiding brain drain—it is an active two-way model: sending Japanese researchers abroad while simultaneously attracting world-class talent into Japan to deepen its scientific networks and global research output.

Until now, Japan has been cautious in recruiting American researchers, largely out of respect for its diplomatic ties with the United States. Instead, it has historically focused on attracting talent from Asia—particularly China, South Korea, Southeast Asia, and India—as well as from Europe. Most of Japan’s foreign researchers today hail from these regions, and European representation has been steadily growing. However, Ishiba’s directive marks a clear pivot. During the meeting, he instructed ministers to urgently draft concrete strategies for recruiting global talent, clearly signaling a departure from Japan’s previously restrained approach.

Among the initiatives under discussion is a move to narrow the considerable pay gap between Japanese and American academics. Professors at prestigious U.S. institutions typically earn over USD 207,030 annually, nearly three times the average USD 69,000–83,000 salary for Japanese professors. To bridge this divide, Ishiba has directed officials to mobilize the 10 trillion yen university endowment fund—a national strategic fund created to elevate Japanese universities to world-class status. The fund is now seen as a cornerstone in efforts to enhance researcher compensation, secure resources, and modernize infrastructure to make Japan more competitive in the global academic marketplace.

Universities Actively Court U.S. Researchers and Students

Tohoku University stands at the forefront of this national pivot. This year, it received USD 106 million under the “International Excellent Research University” program funded by the national endowment and is now setting its sights on U.S.-based faculty. The university has reportedly reached out to approximately 180 researchers from elite American institutions, including Stanford University, and has begun active on-the-ground recruitment. Tohoku plans to hire several of these scholars by March 2026 and is seeking additional government funding to expand its recruitment capacity.

Other universities are also mobilizing swiftly. Osaka University has become the first Japanese institution to publicly declare a numerical goal: it aims to bring in 100 U.S.-based researchers and has secured a USD 4.14 million yen budget to support the endeavor. The university is already overhauling its internal systems to accommodate the incoming talent. It has also launched a formal hiring process to recruit young medical and life sciences researchers as postdoctoral fellows. Crucially, Osaka is providing tailored administrative assistance to ensure smooth entry and settlement for these scholars.

At the same time, the Japanese government is working to attract international students who have been displaced by U.S. visa and enrollment restrictions. On May 27, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology issued a nationwide directive to universities, urging them to prepare for an influx of students from U.S. institutions like Harvard University who are reconsidering their academic futures. The University of Tokyo was the first to respond officially. President Teruo Fujii underscored the urgency of Japan’s role in preserving global academic continuity, stating, “The academic world is working to protect its accumulated research achievements. Japan must determine how it can contribute. A systematic and strategic approach is essential.”

Europe and Canada Join the Global Talent Race

Japan’s push is part of a broader, international movement. In May, the European Union launched the “Choose Europe” campaign, specifically targeting scientists disillusioned by the situation in the U.S. As part of the campaign, the EU introduced a 500 million euro support package for the 2025–2027 period aimed at creating a favorable research ecosystem. The initiative includes generous salaries, long-term contracts, increased research funding, and simplified immigration and residency processes—a comprehensive effort to make Europe a prime destination for scientific talent.

National-level initiatives are complementing the EU’s broader push. France unveiled the “Choose France for Science” platform and is actively courting American scientists. During a visit to the European Commission, French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed that “Europe will be a refuge for scientists,” adding, “Science has no passport or race.” In parallel, the United Kingdom announced a USD 67.5 million investment to launch an immigration program for foreign researchers. Spain, too, is accelerating its efforts, having allocated an additional USD 51.4 million to bring U.S. scientists into its academic institutions.

Canada, sharing both a border and linguistic ties with the U.S., has been particularly agile in leveraging the American talent outflow. Since early 2025, there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of American scientists, professors, and researchers relocating to Canada. Several faculty members from Yale University have reportedly transferred to the University of Toronto, and more are said to be considering similar moves. Canadian provinces are taking initiative as well. Quebec has launched a recruitment campaign aimed at researchers disillusioned by the Trump administration’s climate change skepticism. British Columbia and Manitoba have introduced customized policies to attract U.S. medical professionals, with some offering fast-tracked immigration services and generous research grants.

As the world recalibrates in response to shifting U.S. policies, the global competition for minds is intensifying. For countries like Japan, the exodus of American-based scientific talent is not just a challenge—it is a strategic opportunity. With bold investments, diplomatic nuance, and long-term vision, Japan and its international partners are redrawing the map of global research leadership. The coming years may well reveal that the greatest scientific discoveries of the post-Trump era will not be made in America—but by those America let go.

Chinese Researcher Couple Indicted for Smuggling Fungus into U.S.
Seized Bacteria Deemed ‘Potential Agricultural Bioterror Weapon’
U.S.-China Tensions over Tech and Information Leaks Escalate into National Security Issue

Two Chinese researchers working in a U.S. university laboratory have been indicted for attempting to smuggle toxic bacteria into the United States. This incident has raised growing concerns in diplomatic circles that the ripple effects of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry are now extending into academic research settings. Observers warn that the conflict between the two nations is escalating beyond trade disputes and technological supremacy, posing direct threats to national security and the everyday lives of citizens.

Attempt to Smuggle Bioterror Fungus onto U.S. Soil

According to The Washington Post on the 8th (local time), the U.S. Department of Justice announced on the 3rd that Yuan Qingjian (33), a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Michigan's Microbial Interactions Lab, and Liu Junyong (34), a researcher at Zhejiang University in China, were indicted for smuggling and conspiracy involving a toxic fungal strain. The two, who are reportedly in a relationship, were caught at Detroit Airport last July trying to bring the fungus into the U.S. by hiding samples in their luggage after arriving from China.

The couple reportedly told customs officials they brought the samples for research and replication of various microbial strains in their university lab. However, the University of Michigan stated it had not granted any permission for the import or research of the fungus in question.

The fungus they attempted to bring in—Fusarium graminearum—is far from harmless. U.S. authorities classify it as a potential agricultural bioterror agent. According to Fox News, FBI agent Edward Nie testified in court that the mycotoxins produced by the fungus could cause severe vomiting and liver damage if introduced into the human body.

The scientific journal Science also highlighted the risks, noting that the fungus can cause head blight in key crops such as wheat, barley, corn, oats, and even rice. Infected crops lose commercial value and, in severe cases, the disease can drastically reduce yields—causing billions of dollars in economic losses annually.

U.S. Prosecutors Highlight Ties to Chinese Communist Party

The FBI has pointed to this case as further evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is embedding operatives and researchers in U.S. institutions to target food security. Investigators reportedly found on the suspects’ phones a personal research evaluation report for a Chinese university and a signed loyalty pledge to "adhere to the principles of the Chinese Communist Party."

According to U.S. public broadcaster Radio Free Asia, the China Scholarship Council (CSC) provides funding to around 15% of Chinese students studying in the U.S. The report also noted that recipients of such scholarships are often required to sign agreements pledging to submit regular updates to the Chinese government before leaving the country.

This case is part of a growing trend of espionage involving Chinese nationals in U.S. academic institutions. In 2019, Harvard Medical School researcher Zaosong Zheng was caught trying to smuggle 21 biological samples related to cancer research back to China by hiding them in his socks at Boston Logan Airport. In 2020, former Tianjin University professor Hao Zhang was convicted of attempting to steal proprietary semiconductor technology from U.S. companies Avago and Skyworks.

In 2021, Xu Yanjun, an intelligence officer from China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), was arrested for trying to steal aerospace technology from major U.S. companies including GE Aviation. From December 2013 until his capture, Xu reportedly tried to recruit industry experts under the guise of academic exchanges—inviting them to China under false pretenses while working with front companies and fake universities. His ultimate goal was to obtain classified information related to GE’s proprietary composite aircraft engine fan module—technology believed to be unmatched globally.

2020: U.S. Sent Home All CSC-Funded Chinese Visiting Scholars

Experts are drawing links between this recent smuggling case and broader efforts by the Trump administration’s second-term team to cancel the visas of Chinese nationals tied to the CCP or engaged in sensitive research. Increasingly, U.S. politicians and media outlets have voiced concerns about Chinese students potentially engaging in espionage. In response, the U.S. government has moved to tighten visa screening and management.

The Trump administration had already launched the China Initiative in 2018 during its first term, aimed at identifying Chinese spies and preventing intellectual property theft. As part of the initiative, in 2020 the University of North Texas ordered all Chinese visiting researchers funded by the CSC to leave. The CSC, a division of China’s Ministry of Education, supports international study and exchanges for Chinese students. Many of these researchers held J-1 exchange visas.

Investigations conducted at the time revealed that many researchers involved in CCP-led talent recruitment programs had received Chinese funding and were later indicted for technology theft. In response, the Trump administration also stepped up oversight of U.S. federally funded research programs—such as those supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to ensure foreign funding sources were disclosed.

Spy Label Deals a Blow to U.S. Education and Research
Fighting Espionage or Excluding Talent? The Strategic Paradox of Anti-China Policy
Behind the ‘National Security’ Justification: Fears of Innovation Suppression

In the Trump administration’s escalating effort to shield national secrets and curb foreign influence, Chinese students and scholars in the U.S. have become central targets. With sweeping visa cancellations underway, justified by fears of espionage, critics warn the administration’s tactics may be inflicting more harm on U.S. interests than the threats it aims to contain. Experts, academics, and policy analysts across the country have voiced concerns that this overcorrection risks sabotaging America’s own scientific ecosystem—built for decades on international collaboration, particularly with Chinese talent.

What began as targeted responses to confirmed espionage has evolved into what some now call a campaign of “self-destruction.” The exclusion of nearly 300,000 Chinese students, many of whom are vital contributors to American research, may erode the very openness and innovation that have long defined the U.S. academic and technological landscape.

Mass Visa Cancellations Seen as Overreaction by Security Experts

According to a South China Morning Post report on June 4, the U.S. State Department has quietly canceled a large number of visas issued to Chinese students, intensifying educational restrictions to unprecedented levels. The Trump administration claims the crackdown is a necessary shield against espionage. Yet national security experts warn it may instead be a blunt instrument with dangerous side effects.

The New York Times reported on May 31 that some of the very professionals who once investigated academic espionage believe the Trump administration's sweeping policy is poorly calibrated. Former FBI counterintelligence official Greg Myllonovich explained that the actual number of Chinese students posing credible national security threats is negligible compared to the vast majority who enhance U.S. scientific development. “The number of threats is vastly outnumbered by those who support and advance American research,” he noted.

As of last year, nearly 277,000 Chinese students were enrolled in U.S. institutions, second only to Indian students. These students often occupy research labs, graduate programs, and innovation hubs across disciplines—particularly in STEM fields. But rising fears that their presence could aid the Chinese Communist Party in siphoning off American technology have ignited a sweeping policy response, one that many believe lacks nuance and threatens U.S. progress.

Hong Kong-based China analyst Professor Kong Haofeng warned that even during the Cold War, the U.S. maintained scientific engagement with the Soviet Union, though with careful safeguards. “Blanket halts like these only serve to hinder the United States,” he said, emphasizing that selective security screening is more effective than indiscriminate exclusion.

Adding to the criticism is the administration’s failure to clearly define who qualifies as a “security risk.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 28 that the U.S. would “aggressively revoke visas” for students connected to the Chinese Communist Party or those involved in sensitive research. But no concrete criteria, assessment mechanisms, or appeals processes were disclosed, raising concerns about arbitrariness, overreach, and even racial profiling.

Confirmed Espionage Cases Add Complexity

Despite mounting criticism, the administration points to several high-profile cases as justification for its actions. Recent years have indeed seen Chinese researchers and students prosecuted for crimes ranging from data theft to unregistered work for the Chinese government. These incidents, officials argue, highlight the dangers of the Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) strategy—a Chinese policy that mobilizes civilians and academics abroad to support military objectives.

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted 12 individuals of Chinese descent for espionage-related offenses. The defendants allegedly hacked into State Department systems and targeted American defense contractors—part of what officials describe as China’s “gray zone” tactics that blur the lines between peace and conflict.

One illustrative case is that of Tang Wanjun, a Chinese-born U.S. citizen and former democracy activist. Arrested in 2023, Tang was accused of acting as an agent of China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) while running a civic organization for Chinese dissidents. Prosecutors allege that Tang passed sensitive information about fellow activists to MSS in exchange for support that would allow him to reunite with his family in China. He was indicted in federal court on charges of conspiracy, false statements, and acting as an unregistered foreign agent.

Court documents revealed that Tang had been jailed in China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, later fleeing to Taiwan and then the U.S., where he was granted political asylum. His return to working with Chinese intelligence reportedly began in 2018, after a family visit to China led to his recruitment by MSS agents. Tang’s story illustrates how personal vulnerabilities and coercion may be weaponized in espionage networks.

Another significant case is that of Linda Sun, a longtime aide to former New York governors Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul. In September 2023, she was arrested on suspicion of acting on behalf of the Chinese consulate to obstruct Taiwanese diplomatic efforts in New York. A Columbia-educated political aide, Sun was accused of intercepting invitations, misrepresenting officials’ schedules, and subtly influencing public discourse—including reportedly preventing New York state officials from discussing the mass internment of Uyghurs in China.

These espionage cases complicate the narrative. While they confirm that genuine threats exist, experts argue they do not justify broad-brush policies targeting entire populations. Instead, they highlight the need for precision tools and investigative rigor—qualities many believe are absent in the current visa revocation campaign.

Wider Suspicion of Chinese Researchers Raises Concerns in Academia

Perhaps the most controversial figure to emerge from this geopolitical rift is Professor Charles M. Lieber, once a towering figure in American nanoscience. A former Harvard chemistry chair and pioneer in nanomedicine, Lieber was indicted in 2020 for concealing ties to China’s “Thousand Talents Plan” and failing to report over USD 2.1 million received from Wuhan University of Technology. He was found guilty and sentenced to house arrest and probation in 2021.

In a symbolic turn of events, Lieber has since resurfaced in China. On May 1, the Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School announced that he would join its faculty as a research professor. He will also hold an appointment at the Shenzhen Institute of Translational Medicine. “I am ready to begin a new research journey and eager to get started,” Lieber stated. In a prior interview, he expressed interest in working in mainland China or Hong Kong and hoped to contribute to global science in a collaborative setting.

Lieber’s case continues to polarize observers. Some argue his financial ties and secrecy merited punishment. Others view his prosecution as politically charged and his recent appointment as part of a broader trend: U.S.-trained talent leaving the country under suspicion and disillusionment. Regardless, Lieber’s presence at Tsinghua underscores the real risk of American intellectual capital flowing overseas—sometimes directly into the hands of geopolitical competitors.

But beyond Lieber’s personal saga lies a larger issue—the growing climate of distrust toward all Chinese researchers and students. Experts warn that such collective suspicion amounts to guilt by association, fostering a hostile environment in universities and labs. The notion that simply being Chinese is grounds for scrutiny violates academic freedom and due process, clashing with American liberal values.

As the Trump administration’s hardline policies persist, critics worry the U.S. may be isolating itself in an increasingly interconnected scientific world. National security must be protected, they acknowledge—but not at the cost of driving away the very minds that help America lead in science, medicine, and innovation.

“American Students Are Being Deprived of Opportunities by Foreign Students”
Following the suspension of federal funding, international student enrollment is temporarily blocked.
Trump: “We’re getting played while trying to prove how smart we are.”

President Donald Trump, intensifying his attacks on Harvard University for allegedly defying federal policy, has now demanded a sharp reduction in its foreign student population. The Trump administration, which recently suspended visa interviews to review applicants’ social media activity, also declared it would restrict visa issuance to countries that censor American social media.

Trump Calls for Cap on Foreign Students at Harvard

On May 28 (local time), during the swearing-in ceremony of interim U.S. Attorney Janine Pirro in Washington, D.C., Trump stated that “Harvard should cap its foreign student ratio at 15%.” He criticized the university for “bringing in people from the world’s most radical regions” and added, “We don’t want them causing problems in our country.” His remarks appeared to justify the administration’s earlier attempt—blocked by courts—to ban foreign student enrollment at Harvard

He further questioned, “These countries don’t help us. They don’t invest in Harvard or our universities. So why is the number 31%? Why so high?” suggesting ulterior motives for the large presence of foreign students. “I believe the cap should be 15%, not 31%,” he said. “There are people who want to attend Harvard or other universities but can’t because of foreign students.”

Trump also remarked, “Foreign students must be people who can love this country. We don’t want to see mall bombings or riots.” He claimed many foreign students were “troublemakers influenced by the radical left.” He criticized Columbia University—epicenter of last year’s pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests—but noted they were “trying to work with us,” unlike Harvard. “Harvard wants to fight. They’re trying to show how smart they are—and they’re getting burned.”

Full Visa Investigation into Harvard Connections Begins

Following Trump’s comments, the State Department launched a sweeping investigation into all visa holders connected to Harvard. According to Fox News, the probe now includes not only student visas but also B-1 (business) and B-2 (tourist) visas linked to the university. The goal is to identify potential security vulnerabilities or visa abuses, officials said.

Hundreds of visa holders tied to Harvard may be affected, with some reportedly already facing cancellations or forced transfers. Last month, the Trump administration canceled the immigration status of all foreign students and scholars registered in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), rendering their visas invalid and exposing them to deportation.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in a notice revoking Harvard’s certification, accused the university of “inciting violence, enabling antisemitism, and having ties to the Chinese Communist Party.” She added, “Recruiting foreign students for profit through high tuition is a privilege. Harvard had a chance to choose the right path and refused.”

Why Trump Is Targeting Harvard

Trump’s crusade against Harvard is driven by his belief that the university’s hiring and admissions practices are unconstitutional. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action favoring non-white students—a ruling Trump believes Harvard is flouting. Education Secretary Linda McMahon argued, “If you look at faculty hiring, there’s been a surge in people who are minorities, women, or claim to be nonbinary.” Trump previously vowed to “take Harvard back from the radical left.”

There’s also what some call Harvard’s “original sin.” According to the Financial Times, the university tolerated a “no-platforming” culture—banning controversial speakers, especially on topics like feminism. Initially intended to block hate speech, the practice is now seen as a threat to free expression.

Conservatives claim right-wing students feel marginalized and silenced. Critics argue students are deprived of the chance to hear diverse views and engage in productive debate. FT noted, “Some universities have allowed left-leaning ideology to dominate, enabling a surge in no-platforming.”

Despite his rhetoric, critics argue Trump’s approach is dangerous. His administration has declared its goal of “eliminating the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism on campuses,” turning universities into battlegrounds between patriotism and dissent. This, analysts say, is part of Trump’s broader strategy of fear-based politics.

The Wall Street Journal observed that Trump has used fear as a weapon—punishing law firms that prosecuted him, hunting down immigrants, and pressuring moderate Republicans into submission. His campaign against Harvard, critics argue, is just another front in that war.

U.S. State Department suggests possible cancellation of Chinese student visas
China criticizes U.S. for "undermining its own national credibility"
International students make significant contributions to the U.S. economy

The Chinese government has expressed strong regret over U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks about canceling visas for Chinese students. What began as a trade conflict under former President Donald Trump’s tariff policies is now expanding into the domain of human and academic exchanges between the two countries.

U.S. and China Clash Over Student Visas

On the 29th (local time), Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated during a regular press briefing, “The U.S., under the pretext of ideology and national security, is unreasonably canceling visas for Chinese students. This severely infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese students and obstructs normal cultural and people-to-people exchanges between the two countries.” She added, “China firmly opposes this and has submitted a diplomatic protest to the U.S.”

Mao criticized the move, saying, “This act of political discrimination reveals that the so-called 'freedom and openness' consistently promoted by the U.S. is a lie. It only further damages the U.S.’s national image and credibility.” Regarding the broader implications for U.S.–China relations, she emphasized, “We hope the U.S. will face China directly and engage in constructive efforts to help foster the sound, stable, and sustainable development of China-U.S. relations.” She did not respond directly to questions about whether China is considering retaliatory measures.

The controversial comments came from a statement released by Secretary Rubio on the 28th titled, “The New Visa Policy Will Prioritize America Over China.” In the statement, he declared that under the leadership of former President Trump, he would cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to actively revoke visas for Chinese students who are associated with the Chinese Communist Party or are conducting research in sensitive fields. He also announced plans to revise visa criteria to strengthen the screening of all future applications from China and Hong Kong. The implication was clear: Chinese students studying in the U.S. are being viewed as potential spies.

Chinese Students and Universities in Disarray

Rubio’s extreme remarks have caused visible distress among Chinese students currently studying in the United States. On the 28th, China’s state-run Global Times reported that many Chinese students are seriously considering transferring to universities in other countries to continue their studies. One Chinese student enrolled at Columbia University said in an interview with the outlet, “I felt anger and helplessness after hearing Rubio’s comments and couldn’t sleep. I’m overwhelmed by uncertainty about whether I’ll be able to complete my studies. The possibility that Rubio’s remarks could become reality has made my psychological state extremely complicated.”

U.S. academic institutions have also been deeply shaken. Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University, criticized the move, saying, “Excluding Chinese students is a terrible decision and will have the opposite of the intended effect. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot.” Former U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke added, “The United States has always prospered by welcoming the world’s brightest minds. Excluding Chinese students not only runs counter to American values but also threatens our leadership in science, technology, and innovation.”

Is Excluding Chinese Students a Self-Defeating Move for the U.S.?

Negative reactions to Rubio’s statement are emerging not only in China but also within the United States itself. One major reason is that international students are a vital pillar of the American economy. According to a report released last year by the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), during the 2023–2024 academic year, there were 1,126,690 international students in the U.S. on F and M visas, accounting for 5.9% of the total student population. Among them, Chinese students made up 25%, second only to India’s 29%.

These students directly contribute to U.S. economic growth. NAFSA estimates that during the same academic year, international students generated approximately USD 43 billion in economic benefits for the U.S., including tuition, housing, and living expenses. Their spending is estimated to have supported 378,175 jobs across the country. Last month, the Washington Post reported, “In 2023, the U.S. exported more educational services globally than it did natural gas and coal combined,” highlighting the country's significant trade surplus in this sector.

Notably, more than half (51.9%) of Chinese students in the U.S. are majoring in STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—which are essential for technological innovation. International students with STEM degrees are known to play key roles in expanding the startup ecosystem in the U.S. A Stanford Graduate School of Business study examining 500 American unicorn companies (startups valued at over USD 1 billion) founded between 1997 and 2019 found that over half were founded by immigrants, many of whom originally came to the U.S. as international students. In this context, excluding Chinese students amounts to undermining a foundational engine of America’s industrial and economic growth.