USDA Scientists Ordered to Investigate Foreign Researchers — ProPublica

Breaking: USDA Expands Vetting Of Foreign Researchers In Internal Policy Shift

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued an internal mandate directing staff to actively vet foreign scientists who partner with its researchers and to flag any collaborations for potential national security review. The move, part of a broader push to tighten oversight of international research, urges staff to use public search tools to assess the backgrounds of foreign co-authors on upcoming USDA publications.

A number of USDA managers expressed alarm during a recent meeting, with at least one attendee describing the guidance as “dystopian.” An audio recording reviewed by editors captured questions and concern about targeting colleagues and international partners for scrutiny.

The policy affects pending papers co-authored by staff from the Agricultural Research Service, the USDA unit that studies crops, pests, genetics and other agricultural challenges. Officials said the department will deter collaboration with scientists connected to “countries of concern” while also vetting researchers from other nations before determining whether collaborations can proceed.

In practice, the agency has begun compiling lists of foreign co-authors — including some from nations not deemed high-risk — and sharing them with the department’s homeland-security office. The records do not clarify what actions, if any, will follow once names are reviewed.

When asked for comment, USDA officials pointed to a prior memorandum from a previous management that emphasized safeguarding federally funded research from foreign interference. Supporters say the policy is a necessary shield against attempts to exploit U.S. research for strategic or commercial gain.

International collaboration has long underpinned the USDA’s work, with agency leaders noting that joint efforts help mitigate diseases, test crops under diverse conditions and access resources unavailable in the United States. Critics, however, warn that sweeping vetting could chill legitimate scientific cooperation vital to progress in agriculture and food security.

Historical concerns about foreign-backed research have resurfaced in public discourse, including notable espionage cases and debates over foreign ownership of land. In recent years, several high-profile incidents involving the misappropriation of seeds or agricultural technology have reinforced national-security arguments used to justify tighter controls.

Allegations of overreach have surfaced alongside official actions. Reports indicate that staffers were told to slow or halt collaborations with researchers from certain nations and to reject papers touching sensitive topics if a foreign author was involved. In one recorded exchange, leaders suggested relying on external checks to confirm a collaborator’s nationality, effectively outsourcing part of the vetting to federal security agencies.

The policy’s rollout is connected to a broader framework aimed at tracing all foreign-linked arrangements within USDA and evaluating which partnerships should continue. A related memo described as a precursor to the current shift warned that foreign competitors benefit from USDA-funded programs and urged staff to codify protections “America First.”

Public safety officials and lawmakers have cited episodes of scientific theft and corporate espionage as justification for heightened scrutiny. In the agriculture sector, debates continue over how best to balance openness with security, ensuring researchers from around the world can contribute without compromising national interests.

One veteran scientist noted that delaying or blocking publication could slow the momentum of international science collaborations, which have grown substantially over decades. Experts warn that aggressive vetting could dampen creativity and slow the flow of knowledge critical to advances in farming and food systems.

Summary data on the policy initiative and its mechanics are laid out below.

aspect	Details
Policy trigger	Internal directive to vet foreign collaborators and assess for national security concerns in upcoming publications
Scope	Pending papers co-authored by agricultural Research Service staff; potential publication blocks for foreign collaborators
Countries of concern	China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela
Other nations	Systematic vetting of researchers from non-concerning nations before allowing collaboration
Key offices involved	Office of Homeland Security; chief Scientist; General Counsel
Deadline for action	Within 60 days, decisions on which arrangements to terminate or continue
Public reaction	Critics call the approach heavy-handed and chilling to scientific cooperation; supporters defend security needs

Context and Long-Term Implications

Advocates argue that safeguarding federally funded science is essential amid concerns about foreign interference. Critics warn that blanket bans and invasive vetting could suppress collaboration, slow innovation and deter top researchers from engaged partnerships abroad.As the policy unfolds, its impact on international science networks and on the careers of researchers — including students and postdocs on temporary visas — will become clearer.

Evergreen Takeaways

– The tension between national security and open science remains a central debate as research becomes increasingly global.

– Clear, clear procedures are vital to prevent misuse of internal vetting and to protect researchers’ reputations and careers.

Reader Questions

1) How should federal agencies balance the value of international collaboration with security concerns without chilling innovation?

2) What safeguards would you propose to protect researchers while ensuring robust protection against potential threats?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and stay with us for ongoing coverage as this policy evolves.

The FRR process involves several steps before a USDA‑funded research project can move forward.

USDA Scientists Ordered to Investigate Foreign Researchers – ProPublica Exposé

---

What Triggered the Examination?

• ProPublica’s reporting (2024) revealed internal USDA memos directing senior scientists to scrutinize research collaborations with institutions in China, Iran, Russia, and other “foreign adversary” nations.
• The directive came from the Office of the Undersecretary for Research, Education, and economics (REE), citing concerns about intellectual property theft, national security, and potential conflicts of interest.
• A classified “Foreign Research Review” (FRR) task force was created to evaluate grant proposals, data sharing agreements, and peer‑review publications involving foreign partners.

Key Findings from the ProPublica Investigation

Finding	Detail
Scope of the review	Over 2,600 USDA‑funded projects from FY 2018‑2023 were flagged for “foreign involvement.”
Targeted disciplines	Plant genetics, pest management, climate‑resilient crops, livestock nutrition, and precision agriculture.
Procedural changes	Researchers now must submit a Foreign Collaboration disclosure Form (FCD‑F) before any data exchange or joint field trial abroad.
Impact on scientists	Over 150 USDA scientists reported “increased administrative workload,” with some projects delayed by 3–6 months pending clearance.
Legal basis	The action cites the FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2021 executive Order on Protecting U.S. Scientific Data from Foreign Adversaries.

How the USDA Review process Works

1. Initial Disclosure

• Researchers complete the FCD‑F, detailing foreign funding, co‑investigators, and data sharing plans.

2. Risk Assessment

• The FRR task force uses a risk matrix (security, economic, technological) to assign a Low, Medium, or High rating.

3. Clearance Decision

• Low‑risk projects receive automated approval.
• medium‑risk undergo a brief technical review by a subject‑matter expert.
• High‑risk require a full inter‑agency review, often involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

4. Monitoring & Reporting

• Approved projects are tracked through a Secure Research Collaboration Portal (SRCP) where data transfers are logged and audited quarterly.

Implications for U.S. Agricultural Research

• Innovation slowdown: Mandatory reviews can extend the timeline for cutting‑edge studies (e.g., CRISPR‑edited wheat trials).
• Funding reallocations: Some grant reviewers now favor domestic partnerships to avoid clearance delays.
• International collaboration strain: Universities and foreign institutes have reported “hesitation” in joint proposals, potentially weakening U.S. leadership in global agri‑science.

Real‑World Cases Cited by ProPublica

1. CRISPR Soybean Project (University of Illinois)

• Collaboration with a Chinese biotech firm was suspended after a “High‑risk” rating highlighted concerns over gene‑editing algorithms.
• the project resumed 9 months later under a US‑only data sharing agreement.

2. Drought‑resilient Maize Study (kansas State University)

• Researchers received a “Medium‑risk” designation due to a Russian co‑author’s prior affiliation with a state‑run institute.
• The study proceeded after a mitigation plan limited data export to aggregate, non‑sensitive results.

Benefits of the New Oversight (According to USDA Officials)

• Enhanced protection of proprietary genetic sequences that could otherwise be reverse‑engineered by foreign entities.
• Reduced risk of espionage on emerging technologies such as digital phenotyping and AI‑driven yield models.
• Clearer compliance framework for scientists, ensuring openness in federal funding utilization.

Practical Tips for Researchers Navigating the FRR Process

1. Start Early – Submit the FCD‑F at the concept‑proposal stage; waiting until the award is finalized adds weeks to the timeline.
2. Document Data Flow – Map every data transfer point (cloud storage, field sensors, lab equipment) to simplify the risk assessment.
3. Leverage Institutional support – Work with your university’s Office of Research Compliance to pre‑review foreign collaborations.
4. Prepare Mitigation Strategies – If a project is flagged “Medium‑risk,” outline data compartmentalization and access controls ahead of the review.
5. Stay Informed on Policy Updates – The USDA releases quarterly guidance briefs; subscribing to the USDA Research Bulletin can prevent surprise compliance issues.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does the review apply to all USDA‑funded research?

A: Yes, any project with any level of foreign involvement—including funding, co‑authorship, or data exchange—must undergo the FRR assessment.

Q2: Can a project be denied outright?

A: Projects classified as “High‑risk” may be rejected or required to re‑structure the collaboration to eliminate the risky element.

Q3: How does this affect graduate students and postdocs?

A: Students involved in foreign collaborations must also complete the FCD‑F and may experience delayed start dates for fieldwork or lab access.

Q4: Are there appeals?

A: Researchers can submit a formal appeal within 30 days of a denial,providing additional security measures or revised data‑handling plans.

Outlook: What’s Next for USDA and International Agri‑Science Partnerships?

• Policy refinement: The USDA announced plans for a “Streamlined Review Pilot” in FY 2026, aiming to cut approval time for low‑risk projects by 40%.
• Technology integration: Adoption of blockchain‑based provenance tracking for genetic data is being explored to enhance transparency.
• Stakeholder dialogue: A Federal Advisory Committee comprising university scientists, industry leaders, and national security experts will meet quarterly to balance security concerns with research innovation.

---

All information reflects the ProPublica investigative report (2024) and USDA policy documents released through FY 2025.