David Nacht recently joined an invited panel at FAPA’s 2026 Inaugural Conference addressing government investigations of professors whose research involves connections to China.
The discussion brought together lawyers who have represented academics caught up in these investigations. David drew on his experience representing Dr. “X”, a recently retired University of Michigan professor and nationally recognized scientist in sensory biology, in a case that received significant public attention.
Dr. “X”‘s research has advanced our understanding of how animals perceive and process signals including temperature, light, sound, touch, smell, and taste. His laboratory’s discoveries have helped establish important foundations for the study of sensory biology, neural circuits, behavior, aging, and longevity.
In his remarks, David emphasized an essential distinction: concerns about state-sponsored espionage are real, and the United States has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. But, he argued, many government actions directed at Chinese and Chinese-American professors have not centered on genuine threats involving classified information or stolen intellectual property.
Instead, investigations have often focused on technical or administrative issues—such as foreign-affiliation disclosures and complex federal grant paperwork. The concern, David explained, is that minor compliance errors can be used as a basis to subject researchers to sweeping investigations and pressure them away from legitimate collaborations with Chinese universities.
This critique reflects broader concerns surrounding the Department of Justice’s former China Initiative, launched in 2018. In several high-profile cases, prosecutors relied on alleged false statements or disclosure failures rather than traditional espionage claims, and some cases were later dropped or collapsed amid questions about the government’s understanding of ordinary academic practices and rules.
The consequences reach beyond individual cases. Aggressive enforcement can chill lawful international research partnerships, create fear among scholars of Chinese descent, and cause talented researchers to step away from federally funded research altogether.
The Justice Department ended the China Initiative label in 2022, but the underlying debate continues: how can the country protect research security without treating routine academic collaboration or bureaucratic mistakes as evidence of disloyalty?
David’s panel discussion underscored the importance of proportionality, due process, and a clear-eyed approach—one that addresses genuine national-security risks while protecting the openness, fairness, and international exchange that make American research institutions strong.