Is Agroterrorism the next Disaster?

Smuggling potential agro-weapons into the country is a wake up call

A Chinese graduate student at the University of Michigan was arrested for conspiracy, smuggling, false statements and visa fraud last week for bringing into the U.S. through the Detroit, Michigan airport, the agricultural fungus, Fusarium graminearum. Her boyfriend was also charged, but was allowed to return to China (reason undisclosed). They are 33-year-old Yunqing Jian and her boyfriend, 34-year-old Zunyong Liu, both Chinese Nationals and apparent members of the Chinese Communist Party and defendants indicted in a case in the federal district court, the Eastern District of Michigan.

The facts around the case that led to the arrest were announced by the U.S. Department of Justice in press release on June 3, 2025.¹ The press release identifies the fungus as a potential agroterrorism agent, citing to the literature. However, this fungus is not officially on either the U.S. CDC list of select agents requiring special laboratory conditions and registration or on the potential NIH list of biological weapons.

Looking to the CDC select agent regulatory list of biological agents that require special laboratory conditions, registration and monitoring, this fungus is not on the list.² It is also absent from the National Institutes of Health, biological weapons list, in any category which is no longer published on the NIH website.

According to the complaint, Jian and Liu, her boyfriend, had both previously conducted work on the fungus in China.

The FBI said authorities found a scientific article on Liu’s phone that was titled, “Plant-Pathogen Warfare under Changing Climate Conditions.”

Messages between the two in 2024 suggest that Jian was already tending to Fusarium graminearum at the campus lab before Liu was caught at the Detroit airport, the FBI said. The university does not have federal permits to handle it.³

The Federal permit?

The federal permit that is required for the interstate movement, importation or use on the environment of a crop fungus is a PPQ526 permit from APHIS, the research division of USDA.⁴ Many of the scenarios on their question and answer page use China as their foreign nation example.⁵ The permit does require disclosures about the movement and use, with an estimated time of 127 days to get such a permit.

Before the University would apply for a permit they would go to the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) to determine if experiments could be done in such a way that the benefit outweighs the risk. In the APHIS Biorisk Management Manual,⁶ the genus, fusarium, is mentioned twice as a human disease causing agent thus requiring scrutiny for safety around any experiment or laboratory use in the university. While this is not regulatory, it is guidance and will be weighed heavily for compliance purposes by the university.

It appears from the indictment that a supervising research scientist in the laboratory noted the presence of an unidentified material in Jian’s work space, which indicates the University research staff was using their training and monitoring skills.

What about the crime of economic espionage?

It might seem that the crime of economic espionage (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839 (1996)) should be one of the crimes in the list of charges, but this crime involves the theft of intellectual property to harm the United States. If it turns out that the criminal defendants were using the laboratory and any proprietary or intellectual property resources or developing them for the purpose of harming the United States, this crime could be added as the investigation continues.

The use of a weapon of mass destruction

It appears they did not have enough evidence for even conspiracy or attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction. The use of a fungus, even if it is not on the list of potential bioweapons, could meet the criteria for the federal crime of using a weapon of mass destruction against property.⁷

(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.—A person ⁸who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction⁹—

. . . (2) against any person or property¹⁰ within the United States, and

. . . (C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or (D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; . . .

Here a weapon of mass destruction can be a biological agent or toxin. A biological agent is defined in the statute as:

(1) the term “biological agent” means any microorganism (including, but not limited to, bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiae or protozoa), or infectious substance, or any naturally occurring, bioengineered or synthesized component of any such microorganism or infectious substance, capable of causing—

(A) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(B) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind; or

(C) deleterious alteration of the environment;¹¹

The use of a biological agent capability criteria, “deterioration of food” or “deleterious alteration of the environment” would be met by this fungus, fusarium graminearum.

The FBI and the CBP, the federal law enforcement agencies responsible for this arrest, are likely continuing to evidence of intent to commit this crime, allowing another two charges: attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction; and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Comparing the case of Dr. Thomas Butler:

In 2005, Dr. Thomas Butler, a research scientist at Texas Tech University, was convicted of 47 of 69 federal charges when he transported plague (yersinia pestis) samples between his various locations in the United States to Tanzania and Madagascar.¹² Of those 47, 3 of those charges were for illegally transporting the bacteria, illegally exporting and false statements regarding the bacteria. Similarly, this indictment includes a false statements charge.

Another charge is the smuggling charge, 18 USC 545, which will likely turn on the definition of “merchandise” — the statutory description of what is being smuggled, but it does carry a maximum of twenty years in prison for a conviction.¹³

Much of intent from Dr. Butler was driven by his drive to make money, and reducing his regulatory burden by not taking the time and expense to transport safely, the plague virus.

While this same kind of motivation could be the intent of these two Chinese Nationals, they are still criminally liable for violating these laws, just as was Dr. Thomas Butler.

Final thoughts

Bringing biological materials into the U.S. by Chinese nationals should not be a surprise. In August 2023, I wrote here about the discovery of an entire Chinese National laboratory operating in California, as well as Chinese police stations in two American cities run by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). It appears there was never an indictment forthcoming from the Department of Justice for this egregious violation of at least a dozen federal laws.¹⁴ Fortunately, a new policy of respect for the rule of law, and enforcement of those laws is in effect, and more of these cases are likely to emerge.

---

1. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/chinese-nationals-charged-conspiracy-and-smuggling-dangerous-biological-pathogen-us

2. https://www.selectagents.gov/sat/list.htm

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/04/potential-agroterrorism-weapon-fungus-smuggled-into-us-by-chinese-scientists-fbi-alleges

4. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/organism-soil-imports

5. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/organism-soil-imports/bacteria-fungi-nematodes-phytoplasmas-viruses/fungi-mushrooms-mushroom-spawn

6. www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-biorisk-management-manual.pdf at pp. 131, 132

7. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

8. (3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

9. (2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means— . . . (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title ). . .

10. (3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.

11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/178

12. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/1112587.html

13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/545

14.