A recent congressional investigation has raised serious allegations against Stanford University professor Wendy Mao, accusing her of facilitating China’s nuclear and hypersonic weapons programs while contributing to federally funded research in the United States. The findings, presented in a comprehensive 120-page report by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, highlight potential conflicts of interest that could pose significant risks to U.S. national security.
Professor Mao, known for her groundbreaking work in materials science and high-pressure physics, has maintained prominent roles at Stanford and various national laboratories. Her research, particularly focused on diamond behavior under extreme conditions, has been utilized by NASA to develop materials for spacecraft. Despite her accolades and reputation as a trailblazer for young researchers, the report reveals troubling connections to Chinese military institutions.
The investigation indicates that Mao’s research affiliations have been intertwined with China’s military capabilities for over a decade. It specifically points to her engagement with the China Academy of Engineering Physics (CAEP), China’s main nuclear weapons research and development entity. The report alleges that Mao conducted federally funded research while simultaneously collaborating with HPSTAR, a high-pressure research institute overseen by CAEP and led by her father, Ho-Kwang Mao.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
The report accuses Mao of holding “dual affiliations” that create a “clear conflict of interest.” It emphasizes failures in research security, suggesting that such entanglements are not mere coincidences but rather indicative of how the People’s Republic of China exploits open U.S. research systems to advance its military goals.
According to the report, Mao co-authored numerous scientific papers with researchers linked to Chinese defense entities in areas such as hypersonics and aerospace propulsion—fields with direct military applications. A particular NASA-funded study has come under scrutiny for potentially violating the Wolf Amendment, a law that restricts NASA and its affiliates from collaborating with Chinese entities without an FBI-certified waiver.
The investigation also uncovered that some of Mao’s research utilized Chinese state supercomputing resources, raising further concerns regarding compliance with U.S. export controls. “Taken together, these affiliations and collaborations demonstrate systemic failures within DOE and NASA’s research security and compliance frameworks,” the report states.
Reactions and Implications
The revelations have sent shockwaves through the scientific community and prompted immediate responses from various stakeholders. John Moolenaar, the Republican chair of the China select committee, described the findings as “deeply alarming,” asserting that the Department of Energy has failed to safeguard its research, inadvertently supporting the advancement of China’s military capabilities.
Stanford University has announced it is reviewing the allegations but has minimized the significance of Mao’s ties to Beijing. University representative Luisa Rapport emphasized that Mao has never collaborated on nuclear technology and claimed that she has not held formal ties with HPSTAR or other Chinese institutions since 2012. “Based on results of our review to date, the professor has never worked on or collaborated with China’s nuclear program,” Rapport stated.
The broader implications of the report are significant, as it reveals a concerning trend in U.S.-China research collaborations. Investigators identified over 4,300 academic papers published between June 2023 and June 2025 that involved partnerships between DOE-funded scientists and Chinese researchers, with approximately half linked to military or defense organizations.
While some advocate for open international research collaboration as vital for scientific advancement, the House report argues that such openness, without adequate safeguards, has inadvertently facilitated China’s military modernization.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington has rejected the report’s claims, asserting they lack credibility and accusing U.S. politicians of politicizing national security issues to obstruct scientific exchanges.
As the investigation continues, the academic community grapples with the critical balance between fostering innovation and ensuring national security, highlighting the complexities that arise in an era of intensified global competition. For Wendy Mao, the accusations present a stark contrast to her previously celebrated career, illustrating how the landscape of research can shift dramatically amidst geopolitical tensions.
