FROM THE NETWORK “a communication tool, speaking on behalf of the Party’s line.” OF RESOLUTION 23 TO THE ACTIVITIES OF VIETRISE IN LITTLE SAIGON.
TRACY LA, CANDIDATE FOR THE GARDEN GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT (member of the Board of Education, Garden Grove Unified School District)
One notable objective of Resolution 23 is to develop networks capable of gathering, training, and expanding the influence of overseas Vietnamese. The document clearly states that the Vietnamese government will build a “sustainable connection network” made up of experts, intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, and young Vietnamese around the world. The resolution also calls for overseas Vietnamese to play the role of “cultural ambassadors,” “bridges” between Vietnam and the world, and “subjects” in information and propaganda work. Full text of Resolution 23-NQ/TW.
A problem arises only when a network is operated under the direction, control, or funding of a “foreign principal” to carry out political activities in the United States without disclosure as required by law; or when an organization violates tax law, election law, lobbying rules, or other laws of the host country.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act — FARA — requires certain individuals or organizations operating in the United States at the request, direction, or control of a foreign principal and engaging in political activities as defined by law to disclose their relationship, activities, income, and related expenditures. However, similarity in viewpoint, language, or organizing methods is not enough to establish an agency relationship under FARA; there must be evidence of an agency relationship and activities that fall within the scope of the law. U.S. Department of Justice — FARA
The Case of Tracy La and VietRISE
In Little Saigon, there is currently a social organization called VietRISE, co-founded by Tracy La, who serves as its executive director. VietRISE’s official website states that the organization was formed by a group of 1.5-generation and second-generation activists who began coming together in 2016 and expanded their activities beginning in 2018.
VietRISE describes its mission as building “collective power” among workers, Vietnamese people, and immigrants in Orange County; training leaders; changing narratives; providing political education; mobilizing voters; organizing youth; and creating “long-term infrastructure” so the community can influence local policy. The organization’s programs include Tự Lực School for Organizing, the Thế Lực Cộng Đồng civic engagement internship program, field canvassing programs, and People’s Tours of Little Saigon. Official introduction to VietRISE
Viewed strictly in terms of method, this model has several points of similarity with the network mechanism that Resolution 23 seeks to develop:
- gathering Vietnamese people into an organized force;
- training a younger generation of leaders;
- building long-term political influence;
- changing the way the community understands and recounts history;
- mobilizing voters and influencing local government;
- creating interethnic, intergenerational, and cross-organizational networks.
But the timeline must be noted carefully: VietRISE was formed many years before Resolution 23 was issued on August 2, 2026. Before the “house” of Resolution 23 was opened, its foundation had already been prepared. Based on similarities in method, it is possible to examine whether VietRISE was established to carry out Resolution 23. Although there are not yet publicly available, verified documents proving that VietRISE or Tracy La received direction, funding, or assignments from the Vietnamese government — a matter that should be monitored, investigated, or required to be publicly audited by the U.S. government with respect to funding sources, revenues, and expenditures — the controversy is not only about organizational structure, but also about the way VietRISE presents Vietnamese history.
In 2025, VietRISE carried out a program and posted an article titled “The August Revolution: Vietnam’s Fight for Freedom.” The content presented the August Revolution as the moment when Vietnam gained independence and quoted Ho Chi Minh. The Westminster City Council later adopted a resolution opposing what some council members called VietRISE’s promotion of “communist propaganda.” Councilmember Amy Phan West said the program whitewashed Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Party while omitting dictatorship, political repression, and human rights violations. Councilmember NamQuan Nguyen stated that the presentation reflected only the experience from the communist North’s perspective and lacked discussion of reeducation camps, the imprisonment of military personnel, civil servants, journalists, and clergy after the war.
Tracy La defended the program, explaining that VietRISE wanted young people to learn more about Vietnamese history before 1975. She said the organization quoted Ho Chi Minh because he was the person who read the 1945 Declaration of Independence, and said they would also quote anyone who made that official declaration. However, the program did not tell the full historical truth about events under Ho Chi Minh’s leadership, including denunciation campaigns, the seizure of property and farmland, the killing of hundreds of thousands of farmers during the “land reform” campaign of 1954–1956, and the migration of more than one million northern Vietnamese who fled communism. LAist: Westminster opposes VietRISE’s August Revolution post
This incident does not automatically prove that VietRISE is part of the Vietnamese communist government. But it provides a legitimate basis for the community to ask: Why is VietRISE teaching Vietnamese history to younger generations using false materials written by the Vietnamese Communist Party for its own purposes? Does the organization fully present land reform, the Nhân Văn–Giai Phẩm affair, the Tết Offensive, the invasion of South Vietnam, reeducation camps, the campaign against private business owners, the boat people, and post-1975 human rights repression? Or does it select only those parts of history that benefit the Vietnamese Communist Party’s interpretation?
This is precisely the point of intersection worth noting with Resolution 23. The resolution does not only seek to attract the money and intellect of overseas Vietnamese; it also aims to influence “history,” “cultural identity,” “younger generations,” “soft power,” and “information and propaganda work.” Meanwhile, VietRISE publicly identifies “narrative change” — changing the way issues are discussed — and political education for Little Saigon youth as important methods of operation. This similarity is enough to demand transparency and public debate, but not enough to conclude that secret coordination exists.
Tracy La’s Status as a Candidate
Tracy La is currently running for a seat on the Garden Grove Unified School District Board of Education, Trustee Area 4, in the November 3, 2026 election. This district includes areas of Garden Grove, Westminster, Fountain Valley, and West Santa Ana. Her campaign website confirms that she is the executive director of VietRISE, a member of the Orange County Community Development and Housing Commission, and has participated in several local advisory and civic advocacy bodies. Tracy La campaign profile
The Board of Education has authority to approve budgets, school district policies, textbooks, curricula, and contracts. Therefore, voters have the right to ask Tracy La to answer publicly:
- How does she assess the communist regime in Vietnam and its record of human rights repression?
- Does she recognize the Republic of Vietnam as a legitimate state that once existed in South Vietnam?
- Does she recognize the yellow flag with three red stripes as a historical symbol and identity marker of the Vietnamese refugee community that fled communism?
- What materials does VietRISE use to teach about Ho Chi Minh, the August Revolution, the Vietnam War, and the events of April 30, 1975?
- Does VietRISE’s history education program present reeducation camps, the boat people, the campaign against private business owners, and religious repression after 1975?
- Have VietRISE and she personally ever received funding, support, materials, invitations, or benefits from the Vietnamese government, Vietnamese diplomatic agencies, or organizations connected to the Vietnamese Communist Party?
- If elected, will she commit to completely separating VietRISE’s activities from the authority, budget, personnel, and educational programs of the school district?
These questions are not intended to deprive Tracy La of freedom of speech or the right to run for office. She has the right to present her own political and historical views. But when a person who leads an organization specializing in leadership training, political education, and “changing the narrative” seeks an office that influences educational policy, voters also have the right to clearly understand that person’s ideology, methods, and organizational relationships.
In particular, if VietRISE operates under 501(c)(3) charitable status, federal tax law prohibits the organization from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in a campaign in support of or opposition to any candidate. This does not prohibit Tracy La from running as an individual, but it requires a transparent separation between the charity’s resources and the election campaign. IRS – limits on campaign activity by 501(c)(3) organizations
In summary, developing networks of intellectuals, entrepreneurs, youth, and associations is a lawful form of community activity. But if such a network receives direction or funding from a foreign government to influence politics without public disclosure, misuses tax-exempt status, unlawfully intervenes in elections, or violates other laws, that conduct must be examined under U.S. law.
With respect to Tracy La and VietRISE, there is currently a basis for criticizing how history is presented and for demanding transparency. If sufficient data exists, the matter should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation before any conclusion is reached that they are representatives or direct instruments of the Vietnamese communist government. We, as American taxpayers, should oppose with facts, question with documentation, and protect Little Saigon through the principles of U.S. rule of law — principles that the communist regime does not respect. https://vietrise.org/
Ly Thanh Liem. saigon4saigon Movements