Tag: china

The AI Race With China Is a Lie Told by Big Tech to Justify the Data Center Invasion

As Big Tech races to build water-guzzling, energy-hungry data centers for its artificial intelligence, talk of an “AI race” between the United States and China has permeated public discourse. Pundits, politicians, and the media have all joined tech corporations in selling this narrative. And it’s giving license to Big Tech and their political handmaidens to ruin our communities, exploit our every action (both online and via AI-powered surveillance), and steal the wealth of human knowledge for private gain.

But the idea of an AI race between China and the US isn’t grounded in reality. The researchers, companies, and governments behind Chinese and US AI development are pursuing completely different goals.

The discourse in the US assumes that achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI)—computers that mimic human consciousness—would be so momentous and earth-shattering that clearly this must be the goal of anyone pursuing AI development. But that’s not the main goal of Chinese AI development. And a competition in which the competitors are running toward different finish lines isn’t a race.

If we allow the myth of an AI race with China to give Big Tech free rein, we face a more polluted, less equal world.

A Race Doesn’t Have Two Different Finish Lines

While the US is focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), Chinese developers are focused on AI embedded in products. It’s ChatGPT versus robots.

Yes, China is developing LLMs, although largely in an open-source way as opposed to the for-profit competition in the US. Recent news stories report that China is “catching” the US in LLM development. Indeed, the latest Chinese model outperforms leading US models. But this isn’t evidence of an LLM-AGI race. Instead, it shows that without making AGI its main focus, China is capable of developing its own models almost as quickly as US companies.

More to the point, LLM development in China is incidental to the country’s real goal for AI. Its focus remains on products embedded with AI and robots. Or, as AI policy researcher Liang Zheng says, in China, “The first priority is to use it to benefit ordinary people” (debatable, but indicates the kind of AI they are pursuing).

In the US, the first priority is to exploit people so that the tech oligarchs can profit. It’s chatbots all the way down.

This isn’t to argue that China is doing it “right” and the US is doing it “wrong.” Either approach will lead to a future in which citizens become increasingly disempowered. In which work becomes more scarce and less lucrative for most people. And in which a handful of billionaires grow wealthier and more powerful.

But the arguments being hauled out to support the destructive growth of hyperscale data centers are based on a fallacy. There is no need to “beat China.” China and the US are racing on separate tracks, in different races, with different finish lines.

These two separate approaches also explain the mind-boggling scale of the data center invasion we currently face. The massive hyperscale data centers—recent proposals would demand up to 5 gigawatts, enough electricity to power roughly 3.75 million US households—are only “required” because the US is racing toward AGI. Meanwhile, the embodied AI dominating in China does not require the same amount of computational power.

The truth is, we don’t need hyperscale data centers to “beat China.” We aren’t racing China. We’re killing ourselves so Silicon Valley can race itself.

Keep reading

China: Six-Year-Old Girl Subjected to Brain Gene-Editing Therapy Dies After Being Injected with Viruses

Neuroscientist Qiu Zilong of Shanghai Jiao Tong University is under investigation following the death of a six-year-old girl who was receiving gene-editing therapy during a human trial under his supervision. 

The child was administered an experimental treatment that involved injecting “trillions of viruses carrying the recipe for the base editor into her spinal fluid,” according to a report in Science magazine. 

Science told the heartbreaking story of how the girl bounced into Xinhua Hospital in Shanghai in March 2025, wearing “a pink jacket and blue pants decorated with cartoon bears.” She treated her visit to the hospital as if it were a vacation and her parents were confident she would receive the best of care at the hospital’s acclaimed pediatrics ward.

The child was suffering from a genetic mutation that was interfering with her cognitive development. The experimental cure involved using a gene editor — similar to the fabled CRISPR, but more advanced — to rewrite the mutated gene in her nervous system. The little girl became the first human being to undergo gene-editing therapy for her brain, an experimental procedure that cost over $860,000.

The details of what happened next have been kept secret until now by the arrogant Chinese Communist tyranny, which is very eager to displace the United States as the world’s leading biotech power. 

According to research by Science and Retraction Watch, a watchdog group that follows up on failed experiments and retracted scientific research, the hospital used a fast-track bureaucratic procedure that bypassed national regulations and Qiu and his team severely undersold the risks of the procedure to the girl’s parents. When the truth was finally revealed, international experts said the negative reactions observed during animal testing should have prevented the experimental treatment from advancing to human trials.

The process of gene editing involves using tailored viruses to deliver the altered genetic material to a patient’s cells — and the little girl had a fatal immune reaction to the bewildering cocktail of viruses injected into her spinal column. She died seven days after entering the hospital.

A hideous cover-up ensued, erasing all mention of the little girl and her fate from experimental literature. Most shockingly, Qiu and his team published an article about the animal studies in their gene-editing trial at Nature this year, but without telling the full story of the human child who died from the treatment or the enormous financial contributions her family made to the research.

Science noted that the hospital paid only a “modest fine to a local health authority” after the death of the child and Qiu was not publicly sanctioned until now. The girl’s parents said they came forward due to their anger at the lack of accountability although they still felt it was necessary to use pseudonyms.

“Learning the reality of these missing safeguards has fundamentally changed how we now view the entire project. We did not realize how unusual and dangerous many of the arrangements were,” said the girl’s father, a software engineer who asked to be called “Jason” in the story.

Dr. Qiu was another in a series of Chinese scientists who came to the United States for an education, then returned to Communist China in 2009, “as China was ramping up its efforts to lure its scientists back home.” 

Qiu was, somewhat ironically, an outspoken critic of “rogue geneticist” He Jiankui’s experiments using CRISPR to create genetically engineered human babies, but he still felt there was great potential in using gene editing techniques to address neurological disorders. His papers and video presentations caught the attention of “Jason” and his wife, who emailed the doctor in 2023 to say they were “willing and able to bear the costs” of getting his experimental treatment for their child. He responded to their inquiry in thirteen minutes flat.

Over the course of the next two years, Jason said he came under increasing pressure to pump money into the research, sometimes in dubious ways, such as paying members of his research team directly and informally.

The cost of the treatment increased dramatically and Jason was told that if he stopped providing the funds, everything he had already paid would be for nothing. Chinese law forbids charging patients or their families for unproven therapies, but this prohibition was circumvented by treating the huge sums provided by Jason’s family as “contributions” to advanced medical research.

Jason and his wife recorded all of their conversation with Qiu and other researchers, so they had a mountain of evidence to bring to the table when they decided to go public.

The general consensus from Science and its researchers is that serious medical work was conducted. The research was not a scam operation and Qiu does not appear to have taken any great portion of the money for himself, although he accepted some lavish gifts from the family. The researchers appeared to be reckless, disregarding evidence that their experimental treatment was dangerous and failing to take some precautions that might have been helpful, such as using more powerful preparatory drugs to suppress the little girl’s immune system.

Science and Retraction Watch referred to the case of “Baby KJ,” a Philadelphia boy named KJ Muldoon with a rare life-threatening metabolic condition that was saved by the world’s first personalized gene-editing treatment in 2025. Baby KJ’s landmark treatment and recovery were the kind of success Jason wanted for his child which Qiu evidently thought he could provide.

Jason referred to his child as “Mei,” a Chinese word that means “beauty.” The last week of her life was a terrible ordeal as her immune system fought to the death against the gene-editing viruses and lost. She began running a fever that Dr. Qiu confidently, and incorrectly, predicted would pass. Her kidneys failed, so she could not have any fluids. Qiu seemed baffled by her deteriorating condition.

In the aftermath of Mei’s death, her parents asked Qiu not to publish the paper he had been excitedly preparing for Nature, but he did it anyway — after removing the genetic data collected from Mei and her family and deleting a message of thanks to them.

Some of the international scientists who were excited by Qiu’s paper were later angry to discover he had already administered the experimental treatment to a young human patient who did not survive. Nature’s editors were annoyed to learn Qiu had not told them the full story before publication.

Qiu’s company had an insurance policy for the medical trial, but Mei’s parents received no settlement. Her shattered parents blamed themselves for not asking enough questions and apparently could not bear to speak with the friends who helped pay for Mei’s treatment.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on Sunday that Shanghai Jia Tong University has “established a special group to investigate” Qiu’s clinical study and the paper he published at Nature.

“The medicine school has always valued research integrity and standards, and resolutely opposes medical research that violates research ethics and regulations,” the university said.

Keep reading

REVEALED: Here Are the Mainstream Journalists on China’s Payroll

The identities were buried.

Foreign-agent filings reveal that operatives working for a Chinese Communist Party-linked influence organization planned free trips for American journalists based on the potential for “favorable coverage” and sought to “effectively disseminate positive messages” about Beijing.

But the filings did not plainly identify the reporters who received the access.

By cross-referencing the filings with archived newsletters, annual reports and contemporaneous accounts, this investigation has uncovered the names of prominent American journalists who participated in China trips organized or funded by the China-United States Exchange Foundation, or CUSEF.

The roster includes current and former journalists from The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, NPR, the Associated Press, Vox, The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and other major American news organizations.

In several cases, the trips were followed by columns and reports defending Chinese government policies, attacking President Trump’s confrontation with Beijing or presenting the decline of American manufacturing as unavoidable.

CUSEF was founded by Tung Chee-hwa, a former vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a central component of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front system.

A bipartisan congressional report explains that the United Front seeks to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority” of the CCP. Its targets include foreign governments, universities, businesses, media organizations and other institutions capable of shaping public opinion.

CUSEF’s own foreign-agent records reveal how that strategy was applied to the American press.

Washington lobbyists and public-relations firms working for the organization described plans to recruit influential journalists, generate “favorable coverage” and “effectively disseminate positive messages to the media, key influencers and opinion leaders, and the general public” regarding China.

Keep reading

The US-Saudi Nuclear Deal Makes No Sense

A few points on the shocking U.S.–Saudi nuclear deal announced.

1. This reflects a weaker American bargaining position, not a stronger one.

The broader context is China. The Biden administration pursued a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, as part of a broader expansion of Trump’s Abraham Accords, in part to pull Riyadh closer to Washington and away from Beijing. But Washington’s position has deteriorated since then. The credibility of the U.S. security umbrella has weakened, GCC states have become more strategically autonomous, and Saudi Arabia has gained leverage by diversifying its partnerships.

The result appears to be that Washington had to offer substantially more to try to keep Saudi from drifting further toward China, while getting substantially less in return.

2. By any historical standard, this is an extraordinary Saudi victory.

Compared to previous negotiations, Riyadh has secured remarkable concessions. It no longer appears to have to normalize relations with Israel as part of the package. It is reportedly not required to sign a traditional Section 123 agreement that would deprive KSA of enrichment technology. And there are no comprehensive IAEA safeguards comparable to those Washington has long insisted upon elsewhere.

If these reports hold, Saudi Arabia has achieved what few thought Washington would ever accept.

3. Biden was going down the same path…

The Biden administration reportedly considered similar arrangements, but its efforts were derailed by the repercussions of the October 7 attacks.

Biden officials also understood the risks, although it did not prevent them from pursuing it and signalling willingness to offer Saudi major nuclear concessions. Some of the contingency ideas reportedly discussed bordered on the surreal: having American troops physically guard Saudi enrichment facilities from the Saudis themselves, or designing systems that would allow the United States to disable – or even destroy remotely – the facilities if necessary.

The fact that such safeguards were seriously contemplated should itself have been a warning. If your proposal requires extraordinary mechanisms to prevent your own ally from using the technology you are providing, perhaps the proposal is fundamentally flawed.

4. This may prove a stepping stone toward an even greater disaster: Security Guarantees for Saudi

As Rosemary Kelanic points out, this deal provides Riyadh with leverage it can use in the future to force Washington to provide it with security guarantees. Saudi Arabia can threaten to build nuclear weapons unless the U.S. offers it Article 5-level security guarantees – a disastrous move that would further entangle the US in the region militarily instead of allowing America to come home from the Middle East.

As Kelanic argues, there is ample historical precedent. South Korea and West Germany both advanced nuclear programs that alarmed Washington. Rather than allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States ultimately strengthened its military commitments and security guarantees in exchange for abandoning those programs.

As a result, this nuclear deal may prove to be a prelude to an even more damaging concession to Saudi down the road.

5. This likely weakens Washington’s negotiating position with Iran.

If there is eventually another U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement, today’s decision establishes an entirely new benchmark.

It becomes impossible to argue that Saudi Arabia may enrich uranium while Iran cannot, although Tehran was never going to accept zero enrichment in the first place. But proposals that earlier had been entertained – such as a 5- to 10-year moratorium on enrichment – may now also be out of reach.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it becomes harder to insist on intrusive international inspections for Iran while accepting a far lighter non-IAEA inspection regime for Saudi Arabia. And it becomes much more difficult to portray enrichment itself as an unacceptable proliferation risk.

Washington has made the type of deal it wants from Iran more complicated.

6. Israel has every reason to be deeply unhappy.

Much attention will focus on the loss of the Saudi normalization card, which has been one of Israel’s strategic objectives.

But the more consequential issue may be that Saudi Arabia now appears to have a far more credible pathway toward a nuclear weapons capability should it ever choose to pursue one.

That represents a fundamental shift in Israel’s long-term strategic environment.

7. Is this about widening the war with Iran?

Possibly. One interpretation is that Washington made these concessions to secure greater Saudi cooperation in the current (or a future) confrontation with Tehran.

But Tehran itself does not appear particularly alarmed.

Saudi Arabia’s direct military contribution to a war with Iran would likely remain limited, and the Kingdom’s participation does little to alter Iran’s fundamental geographic advantages in the Persian Gulf. More importantly, Saudi leaders have spent years trying to reduce—not increase—the risk of becoming a battlefield in a U.S.-Iran conflict.

If that remains Riyadh’s strategic priority, this agreement is unlikely to fundamentally change the military balance in the war.

Keep reading

The Documents Washington Never Wanted Released

The White House has now released a series of declassified election-integrity documents that the administration says expose what it describes as the largest compromise of American voter data in history. The release followed President Trump’s heated nationally televised address Thursday night, where he argued that China systematically acquired sensitive voter information during the 2020 election cycle and that intelligence surrounding the operation was buried inside the bureaucracy rather than presented honestly to elected leadership.

For years, the focus has been on Russia while China quietly expanded its economic, technological, and intelligence footprint throughout the West. China does not think in election cycles. It thinks in decades as the ancient culture understands cycles. Every major strategic objective is pursued patiently through economic leverage, technology, data collection, academia, corporations, and political influence. Elections become merely another avenue for intelligence gathering and long-term strategic positioning.

According to the newly released material highlighted by the White House, Chinese actors allegedly obtained information on roughly 220 million American voter records. The administration claims the information included voter registration data, addresses, party affiliation, and other identifying information that could be used to map voting populations across the United States. President Trump described it as “the largest compromise of election data in history” and ordered further investigations into both the alleged intrusion and the government’s handling of the intelligence.

The administration further alleges that portions of this intelligence never reached the President in full during the 2020 election cycle and that internal disputes inside the intelligence community resulted in information being minimized or withheld. Those claims are now at the center of renewed investigations following the release of the declassified files.

Whether every allegation ultimately withstands scrutiny is now the question investigators must answer. It is important to distinguish between allegations contained in newly released documents and conclusions that have been independently established. Previous U.S. intelligence assessments issued after the 2020 election concluded they did not find evidence that China successfully altered votes or election infrastructure, although there has long been bipartisan concern over Chinese cyber activity and influence operations. Those earlier conclusions are directly challenged by the current administration’s interpretation of the newly declassified material.

Keep reading

Catherine Herridge Uncovers Shocking Revelations About The Biden Family

Investigative journalist Catherine Herridge has uncovered records pointing to Chinese blackmail efforts targeting the Biden family – documents that sat in plain sight for the legacy media, the FBI, and the CIA, only to be met with willful blindness.

In a recent appearance discussing declassified materials related to China’s 2020 election influence operations, Herridge described finding references to blackmail by China that were prepared for inclusion in the president’s daily brief.

“I found these records which are talking about blackmail by China,” Herridge explained, adding “It was for President Biden’s daily brief. I can conclude, I think, that it was probably about targeting his family.”

She noted that the findings, along with broader evidence of suppressed intelligence on Chinese influence, were ignored and buried in order to protect Democratic power, stating tghat “in the media or legacy media there was kind of a willful blindness. They didn’t want to look at the records. All you had to do was spend a couple of hours.”

Keep reading

ARRESTED: Intern at NATO Headquarters Faces Charges of Espionage in Belgium – Canadian Woman With Chinese Origin Also Suspected of Links to Criminal Organization

NATO infiltrated.

In Belgium, home of the military headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), police made an arrest with geopolitical significance.

A ‘Canadian woman ​of Chinese origin’, an intern at ‌NATO’s military headquarters, has been detained on spying charges, Belgian prosecutors said today (25).

Reuters reported:

“’She is suspected of spying ​on behalf of a third country and of ​being a member of a criminal organization’, the ⁠Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.

The woman ​worked as an intern at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied ​Powers Europe (SHAPE) in the Belgian city of Mons, the statement said. It did not provide further details of her identity or the country ​or organization she is suspected of spying for.”

NATO’s headquarters do the planning and carrying out all operations of the transatlantic military alliance.

“The suspect had come to the attention of SHAPE’s security services, who reported ​her to Belgian ​intelligence officials, ⁠according to the prosecutors’ statement. Investigators searched the suspect’s home and her workplace at SHAPE, and ​she was placed under arrest on Friday.

A ​SHAPE spokesperson said ⁠there was no indication that NATO or SHAPE operational readiness, command and control arrangements or ongoing tasks had been affected.”

Keep reading

Democratic Socialists Think America Is Somehow Worse Than Mass Murderer Mao Zedong

We’re hearing more and more from the Democratic Socialists of America about all of the sins of America and very little of the good things we’ve done to ourselves and to the world at large on our 250th birthday. 

What is it, the nature of this DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, and the diversity, equity, inclusion criticism that we were racist, sexist, nativist, cruel, ruthless, etc., etc.  

But my question is, compared to what? 

Mao Zedong? He killed 70 million people. He was the greatest mass murderer in history, and that government is still communist in an unbroken chain from [Chinese leader] Xi [Jinping] all the way back to Mao. Do we ever talk about that or the million people who are in concentration camps in China? 

Compared to historically to the Aztecs? We’re told the Aztecs were great people. They had an empire, but they crushed over a million people to create their empire. Some years, they sacrificed up to 10,000, maybe 15,000 a year of conquered tribes of fellow Indigenous people. 

Do we remember Shaka Zulu, the 19th-century creator of the Zulu nation? He was responsible for a genocide in crushing his enemies that probably cost over a million lives. 

Do we really think that the Native Americans were living in paradise until Europeans came? The story of Native Americans was conquest, enslavement, butchery of rival tribes. 

So, what is going on? 

We have a tradition in the West of self-criticism. That’s what makes us different. Rationalism, self-criticism, improvement. But when that goes to an extreme, it ventures from self-criticism and self-reflection to nihilism, and it’s quite destructive. 

So, let’s just take a look at where the United States is compared to the rest. 

Look at immigration. Why do a million people, or 2 million people, 10,000 a day under Joe Biden, from very poor countries, most of them from what we would call the former Third World that were victims of socialism, why do they risk their lives coming here every year? 

Why do all these critics of the United States … [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], why did her parents want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Ilhan Omar’s father want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Rashida Tlaib’s father want to come here? Why did [New York City Mayor] Zohran Mamdani’s parents want to come? Was it so bad? 

Keep reading

DHS used anti-China funds on World Cup security

Congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act included $170 million for efforts to counter the national security threats posed by China’s illegal fishing operations worldwide.

But the Trump administration didn’t spend the money on that.

Instead, the Department of Homeland Security diverted the vast majority of that funding to security measures for FIFA World Cup matches, America250 celebrations and other major sporting events, according to a senior congressional official and an administration official who were briefed on how the money was allocated.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) secured the $170 million as part of the OBBB for “maritime domain awareness” technology that helps track the Chinese vessels.

Cruz told us he has “sought to provide resources for those programs, but unfortunately the bulk of the funding has not gone where it needed to go.” But Cruz didn’t say where the money went.

The funding diversion occurred under then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. The department, now led by Secretary Markwayne Mullin, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Approximately $155 million of the $170 million funding pot was spent on counter-drone technology for events like World Cup matches and America250 tributes, including sensors that monitor and track drones in their vicinity, the officials said. The rest was used for Coast Guard communications technology and a Merchant Marine credentialing system.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators led by Cruz called on the Trump administration to impose sanctions on 29 supply vessels that facilitate Beijing’s illicit fishing activities.

The letter reads in part:

“Anyone linked to the vessels, including through beneficial ownership, will be exposed to reputational and financial crime risks. The vessels would switch from being assets to liabilities, greatly complicating the ability of the CCP to continue their IUU fishing activities.”

Cruz’s committee handles the annual Coast Guard authorization bill. Cruz said he intends to continue pushing the issue so that the Coast Guard has enough resources to counter China’s illegal fishing.

The nine senators who signed the letter to Bessent said China is carrying out these activities “at a scale that constitutes ecocide conducted via gross human rights abuses.”

Keep reading

The CCP Is Inside the Fed: Shocking New Evidence of Chinese Infiltration at America’s Central Bank

Most Americans have heard about Chinese spies targeting our military or hacking private companies. But there’s another front in this quiet war, one that’s gone largely unreported—and it may be the most dangerous of all: China’s long game to infiltrate and manipulate the United States Federal Reserve.

A 2022 Senate investigation offered a rare glimpse into this operation, but even that barely scratches the surface. What’s playing out behind closed doors isn’t just a few bureaucratic missteps or naïve collaborations—it’s a full-blown economic espionage campaign.

This is warfare without bullets.

The Fed: A Prime Target for Chinese Espionage

The Federal Reserve is the engine of the U.S. economy. Its decisions move markets, shape global capital flows, and set the tone for the world’s monetary system. Infiltrating the Fed doesn’t just give China intelligence – it gives them influence.

Over at least a decade, the CCP has targeted Fed employees through a mix of coercion, recruitment offers, unauthorized data access, and propaganda partnerships, mostly hidden behind Chinese academic institutions and think tanks.

According to this damning Senate report, the Fed’s own counterintelligence team identified a group of 13 employees across eight regional banks—internally referred to as the “P-Network”—who exhibited serious red flags linked to the Chinese government.

This pattern could be replicated at scale.

Hard Evidence of Espionage and Infiltration

Here are some documented examples that received little attention from the mainstream media:

1. Detained and Surveilled in China (Individual A)

    •    In 2019, a Fed employee was detained four separate times by Chinese authorities during a visit to Shanghai. He was threatened, told his family would be harmed, and coerced into handing over sensitive U.S. economic data. Chinese agents accessed his Fed laptop, phones, and internal contact lists. He was ordered to “tell a good story about China” back in the U.S. This employee returned to his post with full access to confidential monetary policy data.

2. Secret Data Transfers to Chinese Institutions (Individual B)

    •    Another employee sent modeling code and restricted Fed data to a university linked to China’s central bank (PBOC). He proposed deeper collaboration between his Reserve Bank and Chinese state institutions while maintaining access to Class II FOMC data, which includes sensitive internal forecasts and deliberations.

3. Coordination with Chinese Propaganda Outlets (Individual C)

    •   Another Fed employee took a paid visiting professorship in China funded by the CCP and subsequently acted as a liaison with Xinhua News Agency, the Chinese government’s propaganda arm. He even helped Chinese journalists and officials gain access to Fed contacts, often bypassing formal Fed communication channels.

4. Suspicious Talent Recruitment Programs (Individual D)

    •    Another Fed employee attempted to transfer large U.S. data sets to Chinese institutions. He was found to have joined the Thousand Talents Program, China’s premier foreign recruitment tool for stealing scientific and economic research. This affiliation was never disclosed and the employee continued working at the Fed.

A Named Case: John Harold Rogers

The Justice Department indicted John Harold Rogers, a former senior adviser in the Federal Reserve’s Division of International Finance, for allegedly passing sensitive U.S. economic data to agents tied to the Chinese government  .

Rogers served at the Fed from 2010 to 2021, holding access to confidential materials related to FOMC deliberations, economic forecasts, and tariff policy analysis  .

He allegedly began working with Chinese co‑conspirators posing as university students starting around 2013, and intensified the misconduct after 2018, using personal email and printed documents to transfer restricted Fed data  .

In 2023, Rogers is accused of receiving approximately $450,000 from a Chinese university while teaching and meeting with these supposed “students” in China, including hotel rooms where he shared Fed trade secrets.

Keep reading