Harvard University's alleged ties to Chinese paramilitary group, Iran-backed research spark GOP probe
Harvard University is facing demands from key House Republicans to explain allegations it trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group and worked with Iran-linked researchers.
In a letter sent this week, Reps. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party; Tim Walberg, R-Mich., chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee; and Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., requested internal documents and communications from Harvard officials detailing the university's partnerships with foreign adversaries.
The lawmakers raised alarm over Harvard's repeated hosting and training of members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) — a paramilitary organization sanctioned by the U.S. government for its role in the Chinese Communist Party's genocide against Uyghur Muslims.
According to the letter, Harvard allegedly used Department of Defense funding to partner with Chinese universities on research with potential military applications.
Harvard Updates Lawsuit After Trump Cancels Additional $450M In Funding
Between 2020 and 2024, Harvard researchers also collaborated on at least four projects funded by an agent of the Iranian regime, raising concerns about violations of U.S. sanctions laws.
Read On The Fox News App
Harvard's China Health Partnership reportedly hosted healthcare policy training sessions that included XPCC officials, a fact highlighted by Chinese government outlets.
"We are deeply concerned the services and resources provided through these events may violate U.S. law and could have been deployed by XPCC to further repress the Uyghur people and other ethnic minorities in China," the lawmakers wrote.
Harvard replied to a request for comment: "We can confirm receipt and will respond to the Chairs' letter."
Harvard President Claims 'Unfounded Retaliation' Amid Trump Funding Feud
The letter points to several specific research collaborations: In one case, Harvard researchers received DARPA funding to work with Tsinghua University faculty on zero-indexed materials — technology that could advance artificial intelligence systems.
In another, a Harvard researcher partnered with a Zhejiang University professor on polymer science research funded by the U.S. Air Force, which could be applied to aircraft construction.
A third project involved shape memory alloys, materials with aerospace applications, researched alongside faculty from Huazhong University, also under Air Force funding.
"Harvard researchers should not be contributing to the military capabilities of a potential adversary," the letter stated.
The lawmakers also noted that Harvard researchers have routinely worked with Chinese military-linked institutions on dual-use technologies, including microelectronics, AI, and quantum science.
Additionally, the lawmakers raised concerns over Harvard's organ transplant research involving China-based collaborators, citing growing international scrutiny of China's forced organ harvesting practices.
"Harvard trained members of a sanctioned Chinese paramilitary group responsible for genocide, and its researchers partnered with Chinese military universities on DoD-funded research and worked with researchers funded by the Iranian regime," said Moolenaar.
"These are not isolated incidents — they represent a disturbing pattern that puts U.S. national security at risk. The Select Committee's investigation will deliver answers, expose the truth, and hold Harvard accountable to the American people.Original article source: Harvard University's alleged ties to Chinese paramilitary group, Iran-backed research spark GOP probe
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. Gov. Newsom Doing 'Political Calculus' Ahead Of Menendez Brothers Resentencing Decision "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. Read On The Fox News App "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. Menendez Brothers Could Get Freedom Under California Law Signed By Gavin Newsom: Expert "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Freedom For The Menendez Brothers Might Come From A Surprising Source. And This Could Be Next Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Fox News Digital's Bradford Betz, Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, and Landon Mion contributed to this report. Original article source: California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Just 10% of bills passed in CT's 2025 legislative session. Here are the major ones
After months of clashes on multiple issues, the 2025 legislative session ended last week with new legislation passed on the state budget, early childhood education, gun safety, affordable housing and electricity prices. When the smoke cleared as time expired at midnight on June 4, fewer than 10% of the proposed bills had passed both chambers of the legislature. In all, about 3,800 bills were filed this year on a wide variety of subjects in more than 25 committees. Of those, more than 900 bills were passed by the legislative committees. Eventually, state officials said, 286 bills were passed by both chambers and will be sent to Lamont's desk for his signature. A small sampling of some of the major bills includes : The state's new two-year, $55.8 billion budget was hailed by Democrats for providing additional money for Medicaid, nonprofit organizations, special education, and the working poor. But the measure was ripped by Republicans for too many taxes on businesses and too much spending, including an increase of about $1.2 billion in the first year over this year's spending. The massive, 693-page budget passed both chambers in the final days after 66 hours of public hearings and multiple revisions. The measure passed on strict party lines in the Senate, while two conservative Democrats joined with all Republicans in voting against the budget in the state House of Representatives. Lamont said it was important to him that lawmakers passed a two-year budget, rather than one year as House Speaker Matt Ritter had mentioned, so that the state could plan further into the future. 'I think it's an honestly balanced budget,' Lamont told reporters in his office after the session. 'We did it without raising anybody's tax rates. That was not happening previously.' Among the highlights was a tax rebate of $250 for working families who already qualify for the federal earned income tax credit. Ritter had pushed for a visible method of relief and so checks for $250 per year will be sent to lower-income households with children. The money will be directed to the neediest families after budget negotiators dropped a more expensive Democratic plan that would have provided a child tax credit for families earning as much as $200,000 per year. Republicans charged that Lamont had derailed the bipartisan fiscal guardrails set in 2017 and eviscerated the spending cap. Republicans and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association were also concerned that the budget includes Lamont's change to the 'unitary' tax that they said would lead to tax increases for about 20 major corporations like Electric Boat, Wal-Mart, Raytheon, Amazon, Home Depot, Lowe's, AT&T, Verizon, and the parent company of Sikorsky helicopters, among others. The tax has not been mentioned much at the state Capitol in recent years, but Fairfield-based General Electric Co. cited the tax among the reasons that the company decided to move its headquarters to Boston during the tenure of then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. But Lamont and his team have frequent contact with top business leaders, and he said after the initial proposal was released that the leaders had not raised major concerns. Republicans have ripped Lamont with a consistent theme that he has 'folded like a lawn chair' on various issues where they believe he has flip-flopped. Senators even set up lawn chairs outside their third-floor caucus room at the state Capitol that mentioned various issues such as the spending cap and fiscal guardrails. 'Our observation that Gov. Lamont 'folded like a lawn chair' to his fellow Democrats apparently struck a nerve,' said Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield. 'Gov. Lamont performed his lawn chair-folding impression multiple times in recent weeks: On the 'sacrosanct' spending cap, on 'no new taxes', on the Trust Act, and on $60 steak-loving CSCU Chancellor Terrence Cheng's new $440,000 no-defined duties job. The truth hurts.' Lamont seems to have grown tired of Republican criticisms, saying the Senate Republicans have thrown stones from the sidelines without offering their own fiscal plan this year as state budget surpluses have continued. 'I wish they would spend less time on folding chairs and more time on coming up with a budget of their own,' Lamont said when asked by The Courant. 'Their numbers don't add up. They couldn't come up with a budget of their own. If you want to have a place at the table, come up with a constructive idea.' Lawmakers approved landmark legislation to fund an endowment account to create more affordable child care in Connecticut in the coming years. Legislators agreed with Lamont to set aside as much as $300 million per year from the state's future budget surpluses in order to create a large endowment fund that would be invested by the state treasurer and could grow in future years. This year's allocation is expected to be $200 million, based on the size of the current surplus. 'The most important initiative, from my point of view, in this budget is what we're doing in early childhood,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'I think it's absolutely important to economic growth. It gives mom and dad a chance to get back to work. It's all about affordability because you know how big a chunk early childhood and day care can be to a family just getting started out. We're going to have universal pre-K and universal early childhood for early single family, at no cost, earn up to about $100,000 and discounts from there.' Under the plan, families earning $100,000 or less would pay nothing for child care starting in 2028, as it would be paid by the endowment, lawmakers said. The goal is for the endowment to help pay the costs to create 16,000 spaces for preschool, infants, and toddlers by 2030. While those under $100,000 would be free, those earning more than $100,000 would not pay more than 7% of their household income, lawmakers said. But Republicans said that the projected 12% annual draw down in the first two years is too much, saying it would sharply decrease the size of the endowment. They questioned the use of large amounts of money to create an off-budget endowment instead of allocating more money for the state's unfunded liabilities like pensions for state employees and public school teachers. 'It really is the beginning of the end of good fiscal practices,' said House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford. 'They are turning the faucet off on Connecticut paying down its unfunded liabilities. The glory days are over of paying down unfunded liabilities. … This legislation right now is doing away with surpluses as we know it.' Among the most contentious and heavily debated issues was electricity prices and exactly how to solve the long-running dilemma of sky-high energy costs in Connecticut. After numerous revisions, the Senate passed the final version in a 134-page bill by 34-1 with state Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford as the lone dissenting vote. One of the most knowledgeable lawmakers in the building, Fonfara had crafted his own version of electricity reform in the tax-writing finance committee, but the final version did not include all of his ideas, something he called a missed opportunity. While estimates varied, lawmakers said the average residential customer might save about $100 or more per year. Businesses could save $100 per month, or $1,200 per year, depending on their size and usage. Republicans and Democrats have been squabbling publicly about electricity prices for more than a year, both before and after the election. Ritter described the matter as 'the wedge political issue of 2024.' In addition, the twists and turns between the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and the state's electric utilities have sparked a long-running soap opera with lawsuits and ongoing drama that has continued on a heavily-lobbied issue. Even after the session, the situation remained in flux as Lamont said he had a handshake deal that is also backed by the law to fill the spots on the PURA board to five members, up from the current three. Fonfara and former Republican state legislator Holly Cheeseman of Niantic have been the two most-mentioned candidates for the jobs since Christmas, but Lamont still has not officially announced his picks. 'We've got a deal for five people, and I'll do it sooner than later,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'Holly is very well regarded. I think she would be at the top of our list.' Lamont declined to comment on Fonfara, who has been in the middle of various battles related to PURA. Lamont, though, added that he is looking for a highly qualified candidate with deep knowledge of electricity and the regulatory world. 'I haven't found that person yet,' Lamont said. After long debates in both chambers, lawmakers passed a gun safety bill that would make it easier to file civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and make it harder for some residents to obtain a pistol permit. House Bill 7042 allows the state attorney general, as well as private citizens and cities and towns, to file civil lawsuits against those 'who fail to implement so-called reasonable controls in preventing the sale of firearms to straw purchasers, firearm traffickers, and individuals who are prevented from purchasing firearms under our laws.' Democrats said the bill is necessary because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, was passed by Congress in 2005 that provided special immunity protections for gun manufacturers. So far, nine other states have passed similar legislation to expand the possibility of gun-related lawsuits, including New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado and others. Republicans blasted the bill as an attack on Second Amendment rights. The multi-pronged bill also makes it harder for some residents to obtain a gun permit if they committed crimes in other states. Currently, Connecticut residents who commit felonies and 11 'disqualifier misdemeanors' are not permitted to obtain a pistol or revolver permit. But residents who commit essentially the same misdemeanors in other states, and then move to Connecticut, are still able to obtain a permit. The bill would cover anyone convicted of those misdemeanors in another state during the past eight years; they would now be blocked from getting a pistol or revolver permit, lawmakers said. After struggling for years to solve an elusive problem, legislators voted for steps to increase affordable housing in one of the nation's most expensive states. Lawmakers expressed frustration as renters and homeowners of all ages have complained of the price of housing — whether a small studio for a recent college graduate, a modest home for a young family, or a larger home in a sought-after town in Fairfield County. The legislation calls for allowing residential developments in commercial zones, eliminating mandatory minimum parking requirements in some cases to spark more housing, and spurring transit-oriented development, among others. But Candelora rejected the ideas that were unveiled with constant references during the debate to a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. 'These aren't carrots that we are eating,' Candelora said. 'These are rocks that people will be swallowing. … To suggest because we oppose this bill, we are opposing homelessness is an insult to us.' In order to help the homeless, the multi-faceted bill calls for a pilot program for mobile, portable showers in trailers that can be transported from town to town to help residents. The trailers, lawmakers said, are readily available online. For years, nonprofit providers have complained constantly that they have received few increases for providing services for the state under contracts to help the needy by operating group homes, among others. But the nonprofits were pleased with the 2025 session, which came through months of persistent lobbying and testimony at the state Capital. 'The biennial budget agreement will provide more than $200 million in new general fund dollars that will be a lifeline for health and human services providers, their staff and the people who depend on their services,' said Gian Carl Casa, a former top state budget official who now heads the statewide community nonprofit alliance. 'Nonprofit leaders were heartened that rank-and-file legislators, including the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, Moderate Caucus and progressives, stood together to add important funding, and that legislative leaders and the governor agreed. Importantly, the legislature also passed a bipartisan bill that, if signed into law, would index future funding levels to inflation.' He added, 'The support of legislators from both parties can help keep us on track as the state faces federal funding challenges this year and beyond.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
