New analysis says academic collaboration and open research programs have allowed Chinese institutions to access technologies tied to U.S. intelligence research.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A newly published analysis examining American research programs warns that Chinese institutions have gained access to sensitive technology linked to U.S. intelligence research through academic partnerships and collaborative university programs.
The report, produced by Parallax Advanced Research and first highlighted in coverage from The Daily Caller, argues that the structure of the American research system—built around open academic collaboration—has created pathways through which Chinese organizations can study and absorb emerging technologies.
Researchers said the issue centers on programs connected to the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), a U.S. government entity that develops technologies supporting intelligence operations.
Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist known for speaking publicly about the Wuhan laboratory, said the openness of American universities has allowed Chinese state-linked actors to extract technological knowledge from research partnerships.
“The U.S. intelligence research ecosystem — particularly programs like IARPA — is built on a model of open universities and academic collaboration,” Yan said in comments to Newsmax. “The CCP has learned how to exploit precisely this openness as a systematic extraction mechanism.”
“When America’s open academic system intersects with the CCP’s state-directed military-civil fusion apparatus, it creates a one-way flow of technological advantage,” Yan said. “The United States generates the original innovations, while the CCP absorbs them through students, collaborative research, subcontracting networks, and affiliated companies, converting them into state capabilities.”
According to Yan, China’s approach extends beyond acquiring specific technologies and includes influencing research priorities.
“Through funding, influence networks, and control of narratives, the CCP gradually brings critical research fields under its technological and cognitive influence,” she said. “The objective is not merely to acquire technology but to erode the structural advantages of the American innovation system itself.”
The report describes the Chinese government’s broader strategy as “unrestricted warfare,” a doctrine that integrates civilian, commercial and academic resources into national intelligence and defense operations.
Joseph Cella, a former U.S. ambassador to Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu and Tonga, wrote in the report’s introduction that China has adopted a comprehensive strategy for acquiring foreign technology.
“Beijing wages unrestricted warfare across every domain — military-civil fusion, talent programs, open-source exploitation, and systematic technology transfer — while the United States has too often remained on a peacetime footing, subsidizing the very capabilities that now threaten our technological edge and the common defense,” Cella wrote.
Researchers said Chinese institutions have studied technologies developed through IARPA programs and incorporated related research into projects tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the Ministry of Public Security.
The report states that the result has been the expansion of China’s surveillance infrastructure, including systems designed to track individuals through integrated biometric and facial-recognition networks.
Institutions identified as conducting research on American intelligence technologies include the People’s Public Security University of China, the PLA Information Engineering University and the PLA’s National University of Defense Technology.
China analyst Gordon Chang said the situation reflects a broader challenge facing democratic governments.
“We have left the doors wide open, and when we understand the threat we fail to take the actions that are necessary,” Chang told Newsmax. “Democracies have proven unable to deal with threats until it’s too late. It’s the nature of the system — leaders generally do not want to deal with tough issues.”
The report also highlights China’s “military-civil fusion” strategy, a policy framework that allows the Chinese military to access technologies developed by universities, private industry and international research collaborations.
China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law further reinforces that system by requiring citizens and organizations to assist national intelligence work when requested. The text of the law states that individuals and institutions must cooperate with state intelligence agencies when called upon.
Yan said the approach allows China to draw knowledge from foreign research ecosystems before developing and scaling technologies domestically.
“Whether it is AI model distillation or the systematic study of IARPA programs, the underlying mechanism is the same: a form of unrestricted-warfare technology absorption,” she said. “The CCP leverages the openness of the U.S. research system to capture the source of innovation, then completes the engineering, scaling, and militarization within China’s state-controlled system.”
The analysis states that American research has influenced the development of large-scale surveillance programs in China, including platforms known as Skynet, Sharp Eyes and Safe City.
These systems combine networks of cameras, facial-recognition software and biometric databases designed to identify individuals quickly within crowded environments.
According to the report, Chinese officials say the technology has transformed investigative work by allowing authorities to identify suspects almost immediately.
Foreign visitors may also be included in these data systems. The report notes that since 2017 Chinese authorities have required most foreign travelers between the ages of 14 and 70 to provide fingerprints and photographs upon entry into the country.
Once inside China, databases used by public security agencies can automatically record activities such as hotel check-ins, airline bookings and rail travel.
Researchers involved in the report said many of the academic projects associated with these systems are framed publicly as counterterrorism research. However, they argue that the technologies also serve counterintelligence purposes.
“Although such research is framed as counterterrorism, in practice ‘terrorism’ is often a euphemism for foreign intelligence threats — particularly American operatives and assets targeted by Chinese counterintelligence and counterespionage efforts,” the report stated.
“These are not mere academic exercises. Rather, they represent a strategy to target, mirror, outpace, and ultimately neutralize U.S. intelligence and defense advantages through strategic mimicry, targeted adaptation, and systematic exploitation.”
The report also raised concerns that researchers participating in collaborative programs may return to China with expertise in surveillance, censorship and intelligence technologies.
Yan said similar patterns appeared during the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Through the framework of military-civil fusion combined with academic openness, the CCP spent years penetrating and influencing the global coronavirus research community, particularly the NIH-centered scientific network in the United States, while simultaneously establishing influence within the WHO,” she said.
“When the PLA-developed unrestricted bioweapon SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately released and rapidly escalated into a global pandemic, this compromised scientific network immediately mobilized to promote the narrative of a so-called ‘natural origin.’ That narrative quickly dominated the global scientific and public-health discourse.”
U.S. policy efforts addressing these concerns have included restrictions on certain academic visas. During his first administration, President Donald Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10043 on May 29, 2020, aimed at blocking entry into the United States for Chinese students linked to military-civil fusion programs.
The order revoked visas for students affiliated with institutions connected to China’s military research network and described them as “non-traditional collectors of intellectual property.”
Yan said the United States must recognize the strategic nature of China’s technology acquisition model.
“The United States must fully recognize that the CCP’s system of technological extraction — built on military-civil fusion and the exploitation of academic openness — behaves like a cancer,” she said. “It continuously feeds on the host system, drains its resources, and ultimately destroys it.
“If the United States continues to respond through the framework of normal competition or cooperation, it will only keep providing the CCP with the nutrients it needs.”
Chang said the persistence of technology transfers from the United States to China reflects political divisions over how to address national security concerns.
“The worst offenders are libertarians who happen to be Republicans who don’t think it is necessary to have national-security defenses,” Chang said.
Chang also urged decisive action from policymakers to address the issue and halt what he described as a systematic transfer of technology from American institutions to China.
Original article
Comments