In an era of systemic competition, the boundaries between civilian innovation and military application have notoriously blurred into near invisibility. This rivalry, primarily between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), transcends traditional geopolitical flashpoints like the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It manifests in the quiet laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the high-tech incubators of Hangzhou, where technologies once confined to science fiction—such as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)—are being forged into instruments of strategic dominance. At the heart of this contest lies China’s Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) strategy, a deliberate policy framework designed to harness the nation’s burgeoning civilian tech ecosystem for military modernization, effectively turning private enterprises into unwitting or complicit extensions of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
The MCF strategy, elevated to a national imperative under President Xi Jinping, represents a paradigm shift in how authoritarian states pursue power. Unlike the siloed military-industrial complexes of the Cold War, MCF integrates civilian research, development, and production into a seamless pipeline feeding PLA capabilities. This fusion is not merely economic; it is existential, aiming to position China as the preeminent technological superpower by 2049, the centennial of the PRC’s founding. In the realm of neurotechnology, this strategy takes on a particularly insidious character, promising to decode and manipulate the human mind itself—whether for enhancing soldier cognition, controlling autonomous drones via thought, or surveilling dissent through neural data harvesting.
A stark illustration of this dynamic emerges from the story of BrainCo, a neurotech startup that cloaked itself in the prestige of Harvard University while quietly amassing brainwave data from elite U.S. Olympians, schoolchildren, and global athletes. Founded in 2015 by Bicheng Han, a Chinese national studying at Harvard, BrainCo branded itself as a Boston-based innovator in wearable EEG (electroencephalography) headbands for focus training and prosthetic limbs. Yet, as revealed by a September 2025 Hunterbrook Media investigation, BrainCo has been bankrolled by Chinese government-linked entities, including the sanctioned China Electronics Corporation (CEC), since 2017. By 2025, provincial funds from Zhejiang poured tens of millions into the firm, aligning it with Beijing’s 2030 BCI supremacy roadmap. This case exemplifies how MCF blurs lines: civilian products like the FocusCalm headband, marketed for wellness, collect raw neural signals that could train AI models for military “super soldiers” or ideological surveillance.
Systemic competition in this context refers to a holistic struggle encompassing economic interdependence, technological innovation, and ideological divergence. The U.S., with its open innovation model exemplified by DARPA and Silicon Valley, has long dominated dual-use technologies. However, China’s state-orchestrated approach—leveraging MCF to compel data sharing under national security laws—poses asymmetric threats. As neurotech advances, the stakes escalate: control over BCIs could enable “warfare at the speed of thought,” where soldiers interface directly with machines, or authoritarian regimes monitor neural responses to propaganda. This essay elaborates on military-civilian research amid heightened U.S.-China rivalry, using BrainCo as a lens to dissect MCF’s mechanics, implications, and countermeasures. Drawing from investigative reporting, policy analyses, and recent developments as of September 2025, it argues that unchecked MCF in neurotech risks not just military imbalances but the erosion of human autonomy on a global scale.
The Evolution of Military-Civilian Integration
The integration of military and civilian research is no novelty; it is the bedrock of modern great-power competition. From the Manhattan Project’s fusion of academic physicists and industrial might to the Apollo program’s spillover into consumer electronics, the United States has historically excelled at leveraging civilian ingenuity for defense without overt coercion. Post-World War II, institutions like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) institutionalized this symbiosis, funding high-risk, high-reward projects that birthed the internet, GPS, and stealth technology. By the 1980s, the U.S. military-industrial complex—critiqued in Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address—had evolved into a decentralized ecosystem where private firms like Lockheed Martin and Boeing thrived on Pentagon contracts, while venture capital fueled dual-use startups.
This model, however, was predicated on democratic oversight, market incentives, and intellectual property protections. It allowed for serendipitous civilian benefits: microwave ovens from radar research, for instance. Yet, as globalization accelerated in the 1990s, offshoring and supply-chain interdependencies introduced vulnerabilities. China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 supercharged its tech ascent, but it was Xi Jinping’s 2015 elevation of MCF that weaponized these dynamics.
MCF, or junmin ronghe in Mandarin, traces its conceptual roots to Deng Xiaoping’s 1980s reforms, which sought to “civilianize” military tech for economic gain. But under Xi, it morphed into a top-down doctrine, enshrined in the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020) and the 2021 National Defense Law amendments. MCF mandates “organic integration” across sectors, compelling private firms to share data, R&D, and talent with the PLA. By 2025, as detailed in the U.S. Department of Defense’s annual report on Chinese military developments, MCF has permeated “integrated national strategic systems,” with commissions at central, provincial, and local levels overseeing implementation.
In contrast to the U.S.’s bottom-up approach, China’s is command-driven. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) like CEC—sanctioned in 2021 for its role in the PRC’s Military-Civilian Fusion strategy—act as conduits, funneling civilian innovations into military pipelines. This is evident in “Little Dragons” initiatives, such as Hangzhou’s program, which anointed BrainCo alongside AI leader DeepSeek and robotics firm Unitree as prized assets. These entities receive subsidies, tax breaks, and access to “Future Sci-Tech City” incubators explicitly designed for dual-use applications.
The evolution accelerated amid U.S.-China decoupling. Beijing’s 2020 Dual Circulation strategy complemented MCF by emphasizing domestic innovation loops, reducing reliance on Western tech while exporting MCF-forged products globally. In neurotech, this manifests in the 2025 BCI roadmap, which targets “major breakthroughs” by 2030, nurturing 2–3 global leaders—firms like BrainCo chief among them. Xi’s visits, such as Premier Li Qiang’s 2023 tour of BrainCo, underscore the political imprimatur, blending commercial hype with national security imperatives.
This fusion’s dark underbelly lies in its opacity. Unlike U.S. export controls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), China’s National Intelligence Law (2017) obligates firms to assist state intelligence, including data handover. For BrainCo, this meant aggregating EEG data from over 50,000 users—U.S. athletes included—potentially feeding PLA algorithms for cognitive warfare. As one analyst noted, “Non-defense companies might reach a breakthrough… then that becomes classified research.” Thus, MCF transforms civilian labs into military forges, amplifying systemic risks in an age where tech primacy equates to strategic edge.
Historically, such integrations have yielded asymmetric advantages. The Soviet Union’s 1957 Sputnik launch spurred U.S. investments, but China’s MCF inverts this: by subsidizing civilian R&D (e.g., $27 million from Zhejiang to BrainCo in 2024), Beijing achieves scale unattainable through market forces alone. In neurotech, where data is the new oil, this state-backed hoarding could yield “human-machine hybrid intelligence,” the PLA’s professed “highest form” of warfare.
As competition heightens—evidenced by U.S. tariffs and China’s retaliatory rare-earth restrictions—MCF’s evolution signals a zero-sum game. BrainCo’s trajectory, from Harvard incubator to Hangzhou powerhouse, encapsulates this shift: a startup ostensibly aiding amputees now integrates neural prosthetics into PLA-linked humanoid robots, blurring the line between healing and harming.
China’s Military-Civil Fusion Strategy in Depth
China’s MCF strategy is the linchpin of its “great rejuvenation,” a Xi-era vision fusing economic might with military prowess. Formally institutionalized in 2015 via the 13th Five-Year Plan, MCF evolved from ad hoc collaborations into a comprehensive doctrine by 2020, when the Central Military-Civil Fusion Development Commission—chaired by Xi—was established. The strategy’s core tenets—resource sharing, collaborative R&D, and mutually beneficial applications—span 11 key industries, from semiconductors to biotechnology, with neurotech emerging as a crown jewel.
At its essence, MCF dismantles the “firewall” between civilian and military sectors, a legacy of Mao’s self-reliant defense model that stifled innovation. Xi’s reforms, informed by U.S. successes like DARPA’s Third Offset Strategy, compel SOEs, private firms, and universities to align with PLA needs. By 2025, as per the DoD’s report, MCF has integrated “strategic systems” encompassing AI, quantum computing, and BCIs, with provincial funds like Zhejiang’s injecting over 200 million yuan ($27 million) into select ventures. This bottom-up enforcement—via tax incentives, R&D grants, and mandatory PLA access—has mobilized China’s $18 trillion economy into a de facto war machine.
Neurotechnology exemplifies MCF’s potency. Beijing’s August 2025 BCI roadmap outlines a phased ascent: foundational research by 2025, prototype breakthroughs by 2030, and global leadership thereafter. State media touts “super soldiers” enhanced by neural implants, while the PLA’s medical arm hosts BCI competitions for soldier training. Firms like BrainCo, Neucyber, and Qiyuan Lab—state-backed under MCF—pioneer non-invasive EEG wearables and invasive implants, ostensibly for medical use but primed for military adaptation.
BrainCo’s integration is emblematic. Relocating from Somerville, Massachusetts, to Hangzhou’s Future Sci-Tech City in 2018, it tapped MCF perks: rent subsidies and direct funding from CEC, a sanctioned conglomerate advancing the PRC’s fusion agenda. By 2023, BrainCo joined the “Six Little Dragons,” a Hangzhou cohort including Unitree, whose humanoid robots—warned by U.S. Congress as PLA tools—now incorporate BrainCo’s “dexterous hands” for fine-motor tasks. This collaboration extends to Huawei’s 2024 Global Embodied Intelligence Center, where BrainCo co-develops “superior robots” amid U.S. sanctions on Huawei for Uyghur surveillance.
MCF’s legal scaffolding ensures compliance. The 2021 Data Security Law and 2023 updates to intelligence statutes mandate data sharing for “national security,” rendering privacy illusions untenable. For BrainCo, this meant cloud-stored EEG data from Jannik Sinner, Mikaela Shiffrin, and U.S. Olympians—contradicting the firm’s “purged after use” claims—potentially training models for PLA cognitive enhancement. Experts like Nita Farahany warn that AI can now decode “noise” in raw signals, turning wellness data into warfare assets.
Economically, MCF yields outsized returns. China’s R&D spending hit 2.64% of GDP in 2024, rivaling the U.S., with MCF channeling 20% toward dual-use tech. In space, MCF has birthed commercial satellites with military recon capabilities; in biotech, gene-editing tools for agriculture double as bioweapons vectors. Neurotech follows suit: a 2022 PLA institute’s “AI+EEG-facial recognition” for ideological loyalty testing—later deleted amid outcry—hints at dystopian ends.
Critics argue MCF stifles true innovation by prioritizing state directives over market signals, yet its scale is undeniable. As of September 2025, over 50 U.S.-listed Chinese firms face DoD scrutiny for MCF ties, including CEC affiliates funding BrainCo. Xi’s rhetoric—”contributing to the motherland”—resonates in Han’s 2021 interview, framing startups as patriotic duties.
In systemic competition, MCF positions China to outpace the U.S. in “algorithmic warfare,” where human-AI symbiosis defines victory. BrainCo’s patents—360 in BCI—exemplify this: EMG signals from prosthetics, synced with EEG, enable thought-controlled robots, per Han’s archived quotes. As Beijing hosts BCI forums and funds “Qiyuan Labs,” the strategy’s tentacles extend globally, luring talent and data under civilian guises.
Yet, MCF’s Achilles’ heel is dependency on Western ecosystems. BrainCo’s Harvard facade—despite trademark violations—underscored this, recruiting MIT scientists before decamping to China. As U.S. scrutiny intensifies, MCF’s export of fused tech—via Belt and Road—spreads risks, from African surveillance networks to Middle Eastern military deals teased by BrainCo’s partners.
The BrainCo Case Study – A Microcosm of MCF in Neurotech
No single entity better illustrates MCF’s insidious reach than BrainCo, whose arc from Harvard wunderkind to Chinese “Little Dragon” encapsulates the perils of dual-use neurotech in systemic rivalry. Launched in 2015 amid the Innovation Labs’ startup frenzy, BrainCo promised noninvasive BCIs to “train your brain for better focus.” Its FocusCalm headband, priced at $279.99, used dry EEG sensors—drawing on “NASA-inspired” AI—to gamify meditation, appealing to stressed executives and elite athletes alike. Founder Bicheng Han, a PhD candidate (not holder, despite website claims), leveraged his teaching assistant stint to recruit from Harvard and MIT’s Brain Science Center, amassing a team that secured 360 BCI patents by 2025.
The facade cracked with funding revelations. BrainCo’s 2017 Series A, $15 million led by Tencent’s Jason Zeng and CEC, marked its MCF entanglement. CEC, a central SOE and 2025 DoD-listed “Chinese military company,” funneled resources under fusion mandates. Hangzhou’s 2018 recruitment—complete with envoy visits and subsidies—heralded the pivot: Somerville offices emptied, staff “on trips” to China, per Hunterbrook visits. By 2024, Zhejiang’s Industry Fund invested 200 million yuan, leveraging 400 million more in “social capital,” aligning BrainCo with the BCI roadmap’s call for domestic champions.
Data harvesting formed the core exploit. BrainCo’s privacy policy—revised September 7, 2025, post-Hunterbrook queries—claimed EEG purging, yet patents, GitHub code, and partner Riccardo Ceccarelli confirmed cloud uploads every half-second. Han’s 2019 iResearch interview boasted a “massive” database from 50,000+ users, including 6,000 Latin American students—falsely attributed to Harvard access, denied by the university. Elite clients amplified the trove: Formula 1’s Charles Leclerc, tennis’s Jannik Sinner (world No. 2), skier Mikaela Shiffrin, Manchester City players, and U.S. Olympic teams in weightlifting and bobsledding. Ceccarelli’s integration saved sessions in the cloud for “optimization,” trusting BrainCo’s protections—naive amid China’s laws.
Military linkages deepened post-relocation. BrainCo’s BrainRobotics division, producing EMG-controlled prosthetics, evolved into “dexterous hands” for Unitree’s G1 humanoids—Congress-flagged for PLA ties. At 2025 Barcelona expos, these “cyber humans” wowed crowds, but codebases confirm BrainCo hardware enables battlefield autonomy. Collaborations with three “Seven Sons of National Defense” universities—U.S.-barred for military links—further entwined it, despite denials. The 2024 Huawei pact for “superior robots” ties into sanctioned surveillance tech, per U.S. Entity List additions.
Classroom forays revealed MCF’s surveillance bent. The 2018 Xiaoshun Primary School trial—headbands monitoring 200 million potential subjects—drew Black Mirror comparisons and swift suspension amid parental fury. Undeterred, BrainCo resurfaced in Ningxia, 2025 contract for “cognitive intervention” in “special needs” schools—a Hui Muslim region under Sinicization, with mosque ID swipes and religious bans. Farahany deems this “insidious oppression,” logging neural dissent without violence.
Skeptics question efficacy: former executives called EEG “pseudoscience-y,” akin to “hearing a stadium roar outside.” Yet, AI advances recast noise as signal, per Farahany’s The Battle for the Brain. BrainCo’s models, trained on global data, could decode vulnerabilities for interrogation or propaganda—PLA goals explicit in state media.
Harvard’s complicity was inadvertent but telling. Despite 2019–2020 admonishments for trademark misuse, BrainCo flaunted affiliations, including Han’s April 2025 China Forum speech. Advisors like James Ryan, unaware of ties, severed links upon revelation, echoing Newlon’s 2023 exit. Spokesperson Logan Ryan, a Super Bowl champion, endorsed FocusCalm for “flow states” against Brady and Rodgers—only to recoil at CCP links, quipping humanoids trained on his data would be “tough to beat.”
BrainCo’s $1.3 billion IPO ambitions, per Bloomberg 2025, underscore commercial veneer masking MCF. As one of the “world’s best-funded neurotech companies,” it exemplifies how fusion scales: U.S.-developed IP, global data, Chinese capital yielding military edges. In Ningxia or Formula Medicine, the headband’s electrodes press not just scalps but the fault lines of rivalry—civilian tools probing minds for state power.
U.S. Responses and Countermeasures
The U.S. response to China’s MCF has evolved from reactive sanctions to proactive decoupling, but gaps persist in neurotech’s shadowy domain. Early efforts targeted entities like CEC via the 2021 Treasury blacklist and DoD’s Section 1260H list, now encompassing 50+ firms with U.S. footprints advancing fusion. The 2020 State Department advisory warned U.S. firms of MCF exploitation risks, urging CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) scrutiny for joint ventures.
By 2025, bipartisan consensus frames MCF as an existential threat. The 2023 USCC testimony by Elsa Kania highlighted fusion’s scale surpassing U.S. analogs, urging export controls on dual-use tech. The CHIPS and Science Act (2022) allocated $52 billion for domestic semiconductors, indirectly countering MCF’s chip dependencies, while the 2024 Biosecure Act bars federal contracts with Chinese biotech firms, extendable to neurotech.
In neurotech, responses lag. DARPA’s N3 program funds noninvasive BCIs for soldier enhancement, mirroring China’s but with ethical guardrails. The 2025 NDAA mandates DoD reports on BCI risks, including “brain-control weaponry” warned by Senators in April. Harvard’s BrainCo crackdown exemplifies institutional vigilance, but broader academia faces scrutiny: Trump’s 2025 funding cuts to Harvard cited CCP footprints, spurring investigations.
Allied coordination amplifies efforts. The Quad and AUKUS integrate neurotech safeguards, while EU export controls on dual-use AI echo U.S. moves. Yet, challenges abound: MCF’s opacity evades sanctions, as BrainCo’s U.S. patent filings (e.g., 2020 cloud-neurofeedback) slip through. Private sector complicity—via venture funding—necessitates incentives like the 2025 Innovation Act, taxing MCF-linked investments.
Ultimately, U.S. countermeasures must blend restriction with reinvestment, lest MCF cements China’s lead.
Broader Implications and Conclusion
MCF’s neurotech thrust reverberates beyond bilateral rivalry, imperiling global norms. Ethical voids—mind-reading for loyalty, per deleted 2022 videos—evoke IHL breaches in thought-controlled warfare. Data weaponization risks re-identification, fueling predictive policing or bioweapons. As BrainCo eyes Middle East “military” deals, proliferation looms, eroding sovereignty.
BrainCo’s saga warns of MCF’s fusion: civilian promise, military peril. U.S. must fortify defenses to preserve the mind’s sanctity in this neural arms race.
All content on this platform is anonymously published, generated by AI under human guidance, and intended for analysis and intellectual engagement. Views expressed may not represent those of any individual or entity, without guarantees of accuracy or completeness. For further clarification and sharper understanding, directly engage us via greaterasiapacific.th@gmail.com
Greater Asia-Pacific 