The Franklin Tao case ended in a full criminal acquittal in 2024 and has since become a civil lawsuit: after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his last remaining conviction, the University of Kansas refused to reinstate the tenured chemistry professor, and Tao sued the school in January 2025 for wrongful termination and racial discrimination. The suit is now in discovery, with mediation activity on the docket in mid-2026.
What Tao Was Accused Of
A federal grand jury in Kansas City indicted Tao on August 21, 2019, charging one count of wire fraud and three counts of program fraud. Prosecutors later expanded the case to eight counts at trial. The core allegation: in May 2018, Tao signed a five-year contract to serve as a “Changjiang Scholar Distinguished Professor” at Fuzhou University in China, a role whose guidelines called for full-time employment, and he hid that arrangement from the University of Kansas, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy while continuing to draw more than $37,000 in federally funded salary.1Department of Justice. University of Kansas Researcher Indicted for Fraud for Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest With Chinese University The government said Tao traveled to China in December 2018 to work at Fuzhou while telling KU administrators he was in Europe.2Department of Justice. Jury Convicts University of Kansas Researcher for Hiding Ties to Chinese Government
The prosecution was brought under the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, a program launched in 2018 that expanded from trade-secret theft cases to “research integrity” prosecutions of academics accused of hiding ties to Chinese institutions on grant paperwork. MIT Technology Review counted 77 cases and more than 150 defendants under the program, the vast majority of Chinese heritage.3NPR. Arrested Under a Trump-Era China Initiative, Franklin Tao Heads to Trial The DOJ ended the initiative by name in February 2022, with Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen acknowledging concerns it had “fueled a narrative of intolerance and bias,” but pending prosecutions, including Tao’s, continued.4Chemical & Engineering News. The China Initiative May Have Finally Died
How the Investigation Actually Started
The tip that put Tao under FBI scrutiny did not come from a routine compliance audit. It came from an extortion attempt. A visiting scholar at KU who had an authorship dispute with Tao demanded $300,000 and threatened to report him to the FBI as a “tech spy” if he refused. She told him espionage “was a popular topic these days with the FBI.” When Tao refused, she filed an anonymous tip with the university claiming he was a spy holding a full-time position in China, and later impersonated others to lodge additional espionage allegations.510th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Feng Tao, No. 23-3013
The FBI investigated and found no evidence of espionage. What agents did find was Tao’s undisclosed relationship with Fuzhou University, and prosecutors built the fraud and false-statement case from there.510th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Feng Tao, No. 23-3013 According to available records, the visiting scholar was never charged. Tao’s civil complaint later alleged that KU passed her claims to the FBI without vetting them and then coordinated with agents to facilitate surprise searches of his lab and home.6NBC News. Franklin Tao Professor China University Kansas
Conviction, Partial Acquittal, and Reversal
Tao went to trial in March 2022. In April, a jury convicted him on four of eight counts: three counts of wire fraud and one count of making a false statement. He was acquitted on the other four.7Hawaii Public Radio. A Jury Finds a Kansas Scholar Guilty of Fraud and Hiding Ties to China
Five months later, U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson threw out all three wire fraud convictions, ruling there was “no evidence that Tao obtained money or property through the alleged scheme to defraud.”8Chemical & Engineering News. Federal Judge Acquits Chemist Feng Franklin Tao of Wire Fraud Only the false-statement count survived. In January 2023, Judge Robinson sentenced Tao to time served and two years of supervised release on that count.9Chemical & Engineering News. Court Overturns Conviction of Chemist Feng Tao
On July 11, 2024, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver voted 2–1 to reverse that final conviction in United States v. Feng Tao, No. 23-3013. Judge Nancy Moritz, writing for the majority, held that the government failed to prove “materiality,” a required element of a false-statement charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). No NSF or DOE funding decision was pending when Tao submitted the disclosure form at issue, the government relied on speculation that the agencies “would want to know” about his foreign affiliation, and prosecutors had not shown that Tao’s relationship with Fuzhou created a financial interest requiring disclosure under NSF policy or that DOE policy required disclosing the time commitments in question. The court also rejected the argument that the agencies’ later suspension of Tao’s grants proved materiality, writing that “the government may not manufacture materiality by charging someone with a federal crime.” Judge Mary Beck Briscoe dissented.510th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Feng Tao, No. 23-3013
The panel remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. The district court did so on August 7, 2024, and the government did not seek retrial. Tao’s attorney, Peter Zeidenberg of ArentFox Schiff, said “this long nightmare is finally over” and that Tao had been declared “Not Guilty of the allegations made against him.”9Chemical & Engineering News. Court Overturns Conviction of Chemist Feng Tao Every count from the original indictment ended in Tao’s favor.10ArentFox Schiff. ArentFox Schiff White Collar Team Secures Complete Victory at Trial and on Appeal
Why KU Won’t Reinstate Him
The University of Kansas placed Tao on administrative leave without pay the moment he was arrested in 2019. In July 2020, Tao and Provost Barbara Bichelmeyer, with Chancellor Douglas Girod’s approval, signed an agreement setting out what would happen to his tenured position depending on the criminal outcome. A conviction would make his dismissal final and waive his right to appeal. An acquittal or dismissal of the charges would let his appeal of any proposed administrative action proceed “unabated” through the Faculty Rights Board.11ArentFox Schiff. Tao Second Amended Complaint
KU fired Tao in 2023, after the jury verdict but before his appeal concluded.6NBC News. Franklin Tao Professor China University Kansas12Inside Higher Ed. KU Professor Fired Amid China Initiative Sues to Regain Job13Northwest Asian Weekly. University of Kansas Refuses to Hire Back AAPI Professor Wrongfully Accused of Spying for China
The Lawsuit Against KU
In January 2025, Tao sued the University of Kansas, Chancellor Girod, and Provost Bichelmeyer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Case No. 2:25-cv-02005. The complaint brings a Title VII racial discrimination claim over his termination, a procedural due process claim built around KU firing him before the criminal proceedings ended and allegedly breaching the 2020 agreement by routing his appeal through a “temporary” Faculty Rights Board chaired by a non-tenured faculty member, an equal protection claim against Girod under the Fourteenth Amendment, and an allegation that the university conducted surveillance on Tao for federal investigators and coordinated the searches of his lab and home. The complaint states that KU “allowed itself to join in fearmongering and racist witch hunting.”14The New York Times. Trump China Initiative Professor Sues University Tao is seeking reinstatement to his tenured position, back pay, and damages for reputational harm.12Inside Higher Ed. KU Professor Fired Amid China Initiative Sues to Regain Job
On January 29, 2026, Chief District Judge John W. Broomes ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss. He allowed the Title VII wrongful termination claim against KU to move forward, along with the procedural due process claim against Girod and Bichelmeyer in their official capacities and the equal protection claims against Girod in his official capacity. The court held that Tao was “not required to plead his race bias allegations in detail” to survive dismissal on the Title VII count. Tao’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied.15Bloomberg Law. Kansas Professor Advances Claims Over China Initiative Ouster16CourtListener. Tao v. University of Kansas, 2:25-cv-02005
A scheduling order was entered in March 2026. The parties filed a joint mediation notice in May 2026, followed by an alternative dispute resolution report in June 2026. The outcome of that mediation has not been made public.16CourtListener. Tao v. University of Kansas, 2:25-cv-02005