US Farm Agency Fires 70 Foreign Researchers Following National
'USDA has completed a thorough review of individuals authorized to work on contracts with the department and identified approximately 70 individuals from countries of concern,' a spokesperson said.
'The individuals working on these contracts from countries of concern will no longer be able to work on USDA projects.'
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on July 8 had announced a farm security plan that included efforts to bar purchases of U.S. farmland by nationals of the four countries, and to terminate any existing research agreements with them.
Rollins said the moves were necessary to secure the U.S. food supply.
The contractors had worked at the Agricultural Research Service, the in-house research arm of the USDA, said Thomas Henderson, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1657, which represents ARS workers in Albany, California.
Most of those dismissed were Chinese post-doctoral researchers on two-year contracts with the agency, and who were already subject to vetting before being hired, Henderson said.
Some arrived to work on July 9 to find their badges no longer worked, he said.
Because of a federal hiring freeze that has been extended through October 15, the USDA will not be able to replace the fired staff and will need to halt ongoing scientific work that benefits farmers, like a project to develop a vaccine for a deadly toxin that occurs in undercooked beef, Henderson said.
'We don't have the talent now to progress on these research projects. It's setting us back by years, if not decades,' he said.
The USDA did not comment on the concern about lost research capacity.
The ARS conducts research on agriculture topics like pests, food safety and climate change that are high-priority to American farmers. The agency has lost about 1,200 employees, more than 17% of its 2024 staffing level, to terminations and voluntary incentives to quit offered by President Donald Trump's administration.
In a July 8 memo, Rollins prohibited USDA staff from publishing research with foreign nationals from the four 'countries of concern' without agency approval and from attending events organized by 'foreign adversaries.'
Some ARS staff were further told in a meeting that all publications currently under review will be re-analyzed and those co-authored with foreign nationals from the four countries will be denied, said Ethan Roberts, an ARS employee and president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3247.
Before the memo, there were already extra review processes in place to publishing research conducted with people from the four countries, Roberts said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
China Issues Diplomatic Protest Over Philippines' Engagement With Taiwan
China has lodged 'stern representations' to the Philippines over its recent engagement with Taiwan, according to the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Liu Jinsong, director-general of the Ministry's Department of Asian Affairs, summoned Philippine Ambassador Jaime FlorCruz to express 'strong dissatisfaction' with Manila's recent 'negative moves' concerning Taiwan, as well as other maritime and security issues, the Ministry said in a statement on Friday. 'Bloc politics and camp confrontation reflect a Cold War mentality, which runs counter to the trend of the times and is unwelcome among regional countries,' Lin reportedly added. Such protests have become a commonplace of China-Philippines relations over the past few years, as the two nations have clashed in disputed parts of the South China Sea. While the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not specify the exact incidents that triggered the protest, it 'reaffirmed its longstanding positions on Taiwan and the South China Sea,' the Tribune reported. This suggests that the protest may have been related to a Washington Post report published on July 14, which stated that the Philippines was 'quietly ramping up both formal and informal engagement' with Taiwan, including on security. Citing government officials, defense analysts and diplomats, the report stated that security cooperation 'is further along than publicly disclosed.' Since opening diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1975, the Philippines has officially adhered to a 'One China Policy,' which 'recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China' and 'fully understands and respects the position of the Chinese Government that there is but one China and that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory.' However, as Taiwan has become the focus of growing tension between China and the United States, and relations between China and the Philippines have deteriorated over the South China Sea, the Philippines has begun more actively to engage it 'unofficially' on an economic and diplomatic level. A Washington Post report suggests this cooperation also has an increasingly robust security dimension. It revealed that the Philippine Coast Guard had recently conducted patrols with its Taiwanese counterpart in the Bashi Channel, which separates Taiwan from Batanes, the Philippines' northernmost province. It said that Taiwan also sent navy and marine corps personnel to observe the Kamandag joint exercise led by the United States and Philippine marines. It said that Taiwanese personnel 'did not officially participate,' but were involved in tabletop planning and 'watched in real time as cooperation unfolded among the U.S. allies.' The Post report quoted a Taiwanese government adviser who said that 'our security and military cooperation with the Philippines is going to get closer and closer.' China has protested every hint of growing closeness between Manila and Taipei. In January 2024, China's government summoned the Philippine ambassador and warned Manila 'not to play with fire' after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. congratulated Lai Ching-te on his election as Taiwan's president. However, the increased engagement with Taiwan, like the Philippines' growing security harmonization with partners like the U.S., Japan, and Australia, is hard to disentangle from China's own policy in the South China Sea, which has involved more frequent and intense incursions into the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. Over the past few years, the two nations have engaged in growing clashes in which the China Coast Guard has allegedly rammed and fired high-pressure water cannons against Philippine coast guard and fisheries bureau vessels. For this reason, the Philippines has been entitled to negotiate the scope of its relationship with Taiwan, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro told the Post. He added that 'previous attempts to appease its powerful neighbor have gone nowhere,' in the newspaper's paraphrase. He added, 'It would be hiding from the obvious to say that Taiwan's security will not affect us.'
The Mainichi
3 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Yoroku: Debate on regulations against foreigners in Japan should be conducted rationally
The term "xenophobia," derived from the Greek words "xenos" (meaning stranger) and "phobos" (meaning fear), was selected as one of the English-speaking world's "words of the year" in 2016. This came in response to the surge in online searches following the United Kingdom's move to leave the European Union due to a backlash against an influx of immigrants. In the United States, then-President Barack Obama used the term to criticize presidential candidate at the time Donald Trump's immigration policies. This was seen as a reaction against globalization, which had advanced after the Cold War's end and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. The trend continues, as evidenced by the anti-immigrant far-right's success in Germany's general election in February. Japan appears to have been no exception. In the July 20 House of Councillors election, "regulations on foreigners" became a more contested issue than measures to combat high prices. An American newspaper described the election strategy of the right-wing populist party Sanseito, which significantly increased its seats by promoting "Japanese First" policies, as Trump-style. Since the bubble economy era mainly in the late 1980s, Japan's society, once considered closed, has become more internationalized. The "alien" label disappeared from foreign entry counters at entry points to Japan in 1988. The following year saw the enactment of a revised immigration law, and in 1993, the Technical Intern Training Program for foreigners began. The rapid increase in foreign residents resulted from national policies addressing challenges like the declining birth rate and an aging population. The term "post-truth," where emotions have more influence than facts, was also named "word of the year" nine years ago. The lingering closed nature toward refugees remains, and "preferential treatment for foreigners" is far from reality. Seeking to vent dissatisfaction with foreigners and falling into exclusionary attitudes will lead to a dead end. Given the major setback of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito in the upper house election, political instability is inevitable, but it is hoped that the debate on regulations on foreigners will be conducted in a rational manner.
The Diplomat
7 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Princeton University Press Stumbles Into a Xinjiang Tour Debacle
The Soviet-style 'Potemkin tour' is alive and well in today's China – as PUP found out when several of its staff took a controversial trip to Xinjiang. There is a long record of Western intellectuals joining 'Potemkin tours' of authoritarian states during the 20th century. Not all of them were illiberal ideologues. In fact, from the point of view of authoritarian hosts, there were useful legitimacy dividends to be had from cultivating liberal foreign intellectuals, whose idealism could be manipulated through lavish hospitality and curated displays of social progress. During the 1920s and '30s the Soviet Union actively wooed them, just as it was courting Western expertise and investment for its industrialization. One such intellectual, the American philosopher John Dewey, was invited on a tour of Russia with a delegation of educators and college presidents in 1928. Afterwards he praised the new reforming zeal in Russian social and educational life: 'Russia is a revolution, involving a release of human powers…of incalculable significance' for both Russia and the world, he mused. Josef Stalin's homicidal purges later disabused Dewey of his hopes. The Potemkin tour is by no means a thing of the past, but the geopolitical conditions in which such tours take place are rather different from those of the 1930s. As Alexander Cooley and Alexander Dukalskis wrote in their new book 'Dictating the Agenda,' authoritarian states like China have now gone beyond defensively 'parrying threatening ideas' from liberal democracies, and are actively working both to shape opinion and undermine opposition abroad. The 2001 accession of China to the World Trade Organization, the liberalization of its economy, and the expansion of global internet connectivity once led foreign liberal intellectuals to believe that reforming forces would soon consign Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule to history – a fate that Dewey had believed Bolshevism faced in Russia in 1928. Like Dewey, they set their hopes on the removal of barriers 'that prevent intercourse, knowledge, and understanding.' Things are not turning out as they hoped. Liberal democracy's global standing is now weakened by the re-election of an illiberal populist presidency in the United States. The CCP has meanwhile leveraged China's increasing prosperity, and its own command of sophisticated surveillance, censorship, and propaganda technologies, to reconsolidate its power and suppress dissent at a fraction of the death tolls exacted by Stalin and Mao. Meanwhile Cooley and Dukalkis also observed that states like China have 'sought to reclaim transnational networks of influence to advance their own political ideas, to dictate the agenda' in other countries, exploiting economic interdependencies and the openness of liberal societies to transmit illiberal influence. Wealthy internationalized universities and academic publishers are heavily involved, and financially invested in those networks. Thus, the hybrid social and market liberal imperatives driving today's transnational faith within Western higher education – harmonizing free cultural and intellectual exchange with expanding market access – are ripe for manipulation. A recent Potemkin tour in Xinjiang involving Christie Henry, director of Princeton University Press (PUP), presents a vivid illustration of such manipulation, and opportunities to consider how that manipulation can be resisted. According to a June article in China's Peoples Daily, the official mouthpiece of the CCP, 'China in the Eyes of Sinologists: A Cultural Tour in Xinjiang' was held in late June to promote cultural exchange and encourage deeper global understanding of Xinjiang, using the perspectives of invited foreign scholars and educators 'working in publishing and translation.' Many tour participants, including Henry, were previous winners of the Special Book Prize of China award. Its 2025 award ceremony had been held in mid-June, just prior to the Beijing International Book Fair, which Henry and two of her staff had also attended. In a press release published on June 28, PUP, a nonprofit organization that is institutionally independent from Princeton University, explained why Christie and her staff joined the tour: 'Our goal with PUP's China initiative is to ensure greater scholarly exchange, and to bring to English-language readers more knowledge and analyses' of China. By accepting the tour invitation, PUP hoped to 'support that exchange by meeting with scholars, sinologists and translators, and visiting regions our U.S.-based staff had not yet been to.' The tour itinerary explained in the June People's Daily article seemed to accommodate that intention. It stated that in addition to cultural excursions in Ürümqi and Kashgar cities, tour participants joined multiple 'in-depth exchange(s) over translated works by Xinjiang authors.' They also met a few Uyghur authors, as well as translators and representatives of local publishing presses. The tour apparently engaged the social and market liberal dimensions to PUP's China initiative. In August 2017, one month before Henry was appointed as its director, PUP became the first American university press to open a Beijing office, recognizing China's 'increasing centrality in the world of ideas and its growing investment in higher education and scholarly research.' PUP aimed to translate and publish 'exemplary Chinese scholarship' to the world. In April 2022, PUP partnered with University of Chicago Press to provide it with 'exclusive sales and marketing representation in China.' In March 2025, it inked an 'exclusive representation partnership' in China with the prestigious American publishing company W.W. Norton. Still, there are some ambiguities in the PUP press release. According to a Twitter thread by sinologist James Millward, Christie Henry and her colleagues were invited on a tour, but were not told until 'quite late' that the destination would be Xinjiang. In an email exchange Henry did not respond to my request for confirmation of this claim. If Millward's account is true, it suggests that there was no planned rationale for the PUP staff to visit Xinjiang specifically. Moreover, the press release mentions only one tour sponsor, the China National Publications Import and Export Group, with which PUP is collaborating on its China Initiative. The June Peoples Daily article mentions another sponsor: the Publicity Department of the Autonomous Region Party Committee, a propaganda organ of CCP regional government in Xinjiang. The tour was clearly an exercise in United Front influence work. While there is a CCP United Front Department deploying multiple influence strategies domestically and abroad to 'make more people support us [the CCP] and fewer oppose us,' Anne-Marie Brady, the leading global expert on United Front work, told me that it is mistaken to assume that this department does all of that work. 'United front work is the task of all CCP members and all State and Party agencies,' Brady said. The PUP press release in June tacitly acknowledged the Potemkin characteristics of the tour. It had been 'curated,' not 'comprehensive,' and tour footage taken by accompanying Chinese journalists had 'regrettably been repurposed and mis-contextualized… undermining PUP's every intention for inclusive cross-cultural interactions.' This footage, published by state media including the Xinjiang news website Tianshannet, sparked a social media backlash against PUP. While People's Daily and Chinese language Tianshannet news coverage focused on the intellectual engagement side of the tour, state media videos captured tour participants' interactions with Disneyfied Uyghur folk culture displays, which are now a mainstay in Xinjiang tourism. One video of Henry in Kashgar particularly infuriated Uyghur diaspora activists, sinologists, human rights journalists, and many others familiar with the Chinese government's repressive policies of mass incarceration, mass sterilization, forced labor, and forced assimilation against Xinjiang's Uyghur people. Against a backdrop of tour participants dancing with Uyghurs in folk costume, Henry was filmed saying: 'So many cultures exist and meet here, and it's a way for the world to see how cultures can peacefully co-exist and exist in harmony.' She added that she hoped to 'tell this story to the rest of the world.' Her social liberalism had been co-opted to promote CCP messaging on ethnic harmony, to 'tell the Xinjiang story to the world.' Two concerns arise over this public relations debacle. First, despite their awareness of 'the region's ongoing human rights atrocities,' PUP staffers were persuaded to join a government-sponsored tour of Xinjiang, and Henry was somehow inveigled into repeating its ethnic harmony propaganda. If they cannot resist such inducements, can they resist government censorial pressure that compromises the independence of their book acquisitions processes? The tour footage thus feeds suspicions that PUP's investment in the Chinese publishing market is weakening its commitment to free cultural and intellectual exchange. In its June press release, PUP referenced its publication of 'China-critical' books such as Sean Roberts' 'The War on the Uyghurs,' as if to exonerate itself of those suspicions. Roberts responded angrily on X, accusing PUP of using his book to 'whitewash' Christie's actions, and suspecting it was likely 'all about $.' The American sinologist Perry Link told me that his co-authored biography of the Nobel prize-winning poet and political prisoner Liu Xiaobo, 'I Have No Enemies,' had originally been contracted to PUP, with a generous advance payment. After initial enthusiasm, PUP contacted the authors in March 2021 to request extensive revisions to the book manuscript. Link and his co-author's subsequent revisions did not satisfy PUP editors, who canceled the contract, while allowing the authors to keep their cash advance. Columbia University Press then quickly accepted the book, requested no major revisions, and in 2023 it was published to acclaim. Link told me he had 'no smoking gun connecting this event to PUP's setting up its office in Beijing.' However, his suspicions of political bias or censorship had been revived by the Xinjiang tour news. When asked for comment, Christie Henry rejected these suspicions, stating that 'we deny any political influence on PUP publishing decisions, including the rights reversion for this manuscript.' The second concern is that PUP's director joined a tour in a region where the Chinese government has been credibly accused of committing crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide. The intellectual engagement side of the tour was compromised by the fact that leading Uyghur scholars whose works are candidates for PUP's translation projects, like Ilham Tohti and Rahile Dawut, are currently serving lengthy prison sentences. Moreover, Henry's statements about ethnic harmony, even if 'mis-contextualized,' invite accusations not only of moral but also of intellectual irresponsibility. She allowed herself, as the head of a prestigious academic press, to become a mouthpiece for disinformation whitewashing grave human rights violations. At this point, I should declare my own interests. I am also a socially liberal academic, still holding out for free scholarly and cultural exchange despite authoritarian headwinds. I have published translated work by Chinese (and Taiwanese) scholars for Anglosphere readers and I hope that my books are reaching readers in China, even if they encroach on taboo topics for censors. My latest edited book was published by Routledge's Beijing office, and I have no complaints about the professionalism of its staff. Nor do I think Christie Henry should be 'cancelled.' However, incidents like PUP's Xinjiang tour demonstrate that international academic presses operating in China must be vigilant against United Front entanglements, to safeguard their reputation and integrity. They must also work out exit strategies with clear red line triggers. At minimum, those red lines should include censorial pressure on their acquisitions processes, demands to join compromising engagements like Potemkin tours in return for market access, and state-directed intimidation, or persecutions, of authors and employees. There is, finally, one message I want to convey to Henry, to the 13 international scholars and translators who also took part in the Xinjiang tour, and to other scholars tempted into joining such Potemkin tours. It comes from the Uyghur historian Tohti Tuniyaz. In 2014, shortly before his death, the Chinese newspaper Southern Metropolis Weekly interviewed him on his new book, 'Medieval Uyghur Society.' There was much that Tuniyaz could not mention, including his 11 years of imprisonment in Xinjiang on false charges of 'stealing state secrets' and 'inciting national disunity,' over authorized archival research he had conducted in Urumqi. But at the interview's conclusion, he did address the following to researchers visiting Xinjiang: 'Regarding scholars…I hope they treat ethnic history and culture with seriousness and integrity.' He then warned against 'tourism dressed up in academic clothing,' and 'so-called researchers [who] insult ethnic communities by writing with a sense of voyeurism, deepening ethnic misunderstandings.'
