The numbers are staggering. Over nearly four decades, five elite American universities have accepted more than $2.3 billion from countries that federal law identifies as threats to national security.
Harvard University leads the list with over $610 million from these "countries of concern." The Massachusetts Institute of Technology follows with over $490 million. New York University received over $462 million. Stanford University took in over $418 million. And Yale University accepted over $400 million.
These aren't total foreign funding figures—those are even higher. These are specifically from countries that the U.S. government has designated as involved in activities that threaten American national security, undermine democratic institutions, or engage in hostile intelligence operations.
The revelations come from new Department of Education data released Tuesday, compiled through a federal reporting portal that the Trump administration launched to bring what Education Secretary Linda McMahon called "unprecedented transparency" to foreign funding of American universities.
The data shows that between 1986 and December 2025, American colleges and universities disclosed receiving $67.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts. In 2025 alone, institutions reported over $5.2 billion in foreign funding from more than 8,300 transactions.
But perhaps most troubling: Universities reported over $2 billion late between February and December 2025, in direct violation of federal disclosure requirements. Four major institutions—Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, UC Berkeley, and the University of Michigan—are now under federal investigation for inaccurate and untimely disclosures.
The question that these numbers raise is simple and urgent: What are foreign governments and entities getting for their billions of dollars?
The "Countries of Concern" Designation
Before diving deeper into the money, it's important to understand what "countries of concern" actually means.
The designation comes from federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 19221(a)(1)), which identifies nations involved in activities including:
- Threats to U.S. national security
- Undermining democratic institutions
- Hostile intelligence operations
- Technology theft and espionage
- Human rights violations
- State-sponsored terrorism support
The specific countries aren't named in the Department of Education press release, but federal law and interagency designations typically include China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among others. The designation can also apply to entities within countries that aren't wholesale designated—for example, specific companies, universities, or government agencies in otherwise friendly nations.
What makes the $2.3 billion particularly significant is that universities knew—or should have known—they were accepting money from entities with these designations. Federal disclosure requirements specifically ask institutions to identify whether funding sources are from countries or entities of concern.
Yet year after year, billions flowed from these sources into America's most prestigious universities.
Harvard: $610 Million From Hostile Sources
Harvard University stands alone at the top of the list. Since 1986, the institution has disclosed receiving over $610 million from counterparties located in countries of concern.
To put that in perspective: $610 million is more than the total endowment of most American universities. It's enough to fully fund thousands of scholarships, build multiple research facilities, or endow dozens of professorships.
But Harvard—which already has an endowment exceeding $50 billion—chose to accept these funds from sources the federal government identifies as national security threats.
The disclosures don't detail exactly what this $610 million purchased. Did it fund specific research? Did it provide access to Harvard faculty expertise? Did it create relationships between foreign entities and American researchers working on sensitive projects? Did it influence what gets taught, studied, or published?
Federal disclosure requirements mandate reporting the funding, but they don't require universities to explain what foreign entities received in return. That opacity is precisely what concerns national security experts.
In 2025 alone, Harvard received over $324 million in total foreign funding from all sources, making it one of the top recipients of foreign gifts and contracts among American universities. The institution is currently under federal investigation for inaccurate foreign financial disclosures.
The investigation raises troubling questions: If Harvard's disclosed $610 million from countries of concern is based on incomplete or inaccurate reporting, how much have they actually received? And what else haven't they disclosed?
MIT: Nearly Half a Billion From National Security Threats
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has received over $490 million from countries of concern since 1986—approaching half a billion dollars from entities that threaten American interests.
This is particularly significant because MIT conducts enormous amounts of federally funded research in areas critical to national security: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, advanced materials, robotics, cybersecurity, and aerospace engineering.
MIT's research often has direct defense and intelligence applications. The university works closely with the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, and national laboratories on projects ranging from autonomous systems to encryption technologies.
When foreign entities from countries of concern fund MIT research or forge relationships with MIT faculty, they potentially gain access to cutting-edge work with strategic value. Even if specific projects aren't directly funded by foreign sources, relationships built through foreign funding can create channels for knowledge transfer.
In 2025, MIT received almost $1 billion in total foreign funding—making it one of only two universities (along with Carnegie Mellon) to receive nearly a billion dollars from foreign sources in a single year.
The scale is breathtaking. Almost $1 billion in foreign funding in one year, with nearly half a billion from countries of concern over four decades. And MIT continues receiving federal research funding that significantly exceeds its foreign funding.
This creates a troubling dynamic: American taxpayers fund research at MIT, while entities from hostile nations also fund the institution and build relationships with researchers whose work has national security implications.
NYU, Stanford, Yale: The Billion-Dollar Club
New York University ($462 million), Stanford University ($418 million), and Yale University ($400 million) round out the top five recipients of funding from countries of concern.
Each institution has received over $400 million from these sources since 1986—collectively taking in nearly $1.3 billion from entities designated as threats to American national security.
New York University's $462 million is particularly notable given the institution's extensive international operations, including campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai. NYU has built a global presence that creates numerous touch points with foreign governments and entities—some of which evidently fall under countries of concern designations.
Stanford University's $418 million comes despite—or perhaps because of—its position at the heart of Silicon Valley and its close relationships with technology companies. Stanford faculty and researchers often work on projects with commercial applications in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnology, making foreign access to Stanford expertise potentially valuable for entities seeking to acquire or replicate American technological advantages.
Stanford received over $775 million in total foreign funding in 2025 alone, making it one of the top recipients. The question is how much of that came from countries of concern, and what those entities received in return.
Yale University's $400 million from countries of concern spans decades of foreign relationships. Like its Ivy League peers, Yale maintains extensive international partnerships, hosts large numbers of international students and visiting scholars, and conducts research across numerous fields with potential strategic applications.
Yale's total foreign funding figures aren't broken out in the 2025 data, but its appearance in the top five for countries of concern funding suggests significant ongoing relationships with foreign entities despite their designation as national security threats.
What the Money Buys
Federal disclosure requirements mandate reporting foreign gifts and contracts over $250,000, but they don't require detailed explanations of what those funds purchase. This creates a transparency gap that makes it difficult to assess the full implications of foreign funding.
However, research and reporting over the past several years has identified several categories of what foreign funding typically buys at American universities:
Research access: Foreign entities fund specific research projects, gaining early or exclusive access to findings, methodologies, and expertise in fields ranging from biotechnology to artificial intelligence.
Talent recruitment: Funding creates relationships with faculty and graduate students who become candidates for recruitment to work directly for foreign entities or share research through unofficial channels.
Institutional influence: Major gifts can influence university decision-making, from academic programming to campus policies regarding topics sensitive to foreign donors.
Technology transfer: Even when direct technology isn't transferred, funding creates relationships that facilitate knowledge sharing through conferences, collaborations, and informal exchanges.
Reputation laundering: Associations with prestigious American universities provide legitimacy and prestige for foreign entities, particularly important for countries seeking to improve their international standing.
Student and scholar exchanges: Funding often supports programs that bring students and visiting scholars from foreign countries to study at American universities, creating networks and relationships that outlast the formal programs.
For the $2.3 billion that five elite universities received from countries of concern, some combination of these benefits presumably flowed to the foreign funders. The question is whether the value universities received justified accepting money from entities that threaten American interests.
The Compliance Crisis
Beyond the sheer scale of foreign funding from countries of concern, the new Department of Education data reveals a compliance crisis: Universities are breaking federal disclosure laws.
Between February 28, 2025, and December 16, 2025, more than $2 billion in reportable gifts and contracts were disclosed late, in direct violation of statutory requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
Section 117 requires institutions receiving federal financial assistance to disclose foreign source gifts and contracts with values of $250,000 or more annually. The disclosures must be timely. Universities that fail to comply risk:
- Civil enforcement actions by the Department of Justice
- Costs of enforcement being recouped from the institution
- Loss of ability to participate in Title IV federal student aid programs
That last consequence is potentially catastrophic. Title IV programs include Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study funding. Losing eligibility would devastate most universities' finances and make it nearly impossible for many students to afford attendance.
Yet universities reported $2 billion late. Either they're fundamentally unable to track and report their foreign funding in compliance with federal law, or they're deliberately slow-rolling disclosures to avoid scrutiny.
The Department of Education has already launched four investigations into major universities—Harvard, Penn, UC Berkeley, and Michigan—for inaccurate and untimely foreign funding disclosures. More investigations are likely as officials review the newly disclosed data.
Who's Funding American Universities?
The 2025 data provides a revealing picture of which countries and entities are funneling money into American higher education.
Qatar leads all countries with over $1.1 billion in disclosed funding in 2025 alone. This is particularly striking given Qatar's small size and population. The Gulf state is investing more heavily in American universities than China, the United Kingdom, or any other nation.
The United Kingdom provided over $633 million in 2025, reflecting long-standing academic and research partnerships between American and British institutions.
China disclosed over $528 million in 2025 funding to American universities. This figure has likely declined from previous years due to increased scrutiny and restrictions, but it remains substantial. Much of China's funding presumably falls under the "countries of concern" designation given ongoing tensions over technology theft, espionage, and national security.
Switzerland ($451 million), Japan ($374 million), Germany ($292 million), and Saudi Arabia ($285 million) round out the top foreign funding sources for 2025.
These figures represent only what was disclosed. Given the $2 billion in late reporting and ongoing investigations into inaccurate disclosures, the actual totals may be significantly higher.
The Biggest Recipients: Carnegie Mellon and MIT
While Harvard, MIT, NYU, Stanford, and Yale lead in funding from countries of concern over decades, the 2025 single-year data shows different patterns in total foreign funding.
Carnegie Mellon University received almost $1 billion in foreign funding in 2025—the highest total for any institution. Much of this likely relates to Carnegie Mellon's campus in Qatar, which receives substantial funding from the Qatari government.
MIT also received almost $1 billion in foreign funding in 2025, making it tied with Carnegie Mellon for the highest annual foreign funding total.
Stanford received over $775 million, and Harvard received over $324 million in total foreign funding in 2025.
These numbers dwarf the budgets of most American universities. They represent massive financial relationships between elite institutions and foreign entities—relationships that create dependencies, influence, and access that extend far beyond simple financial transactions.
The Trump Administration's Transparency Push
The release of this data comes as part of what the Trump administration describes as an unprecedented transparency initiative regarding foreign funding of American universities.
"Thanks to the Trump Administration's new accountability portal, the American people have unprecedented visibility into the foreign dollars flowing into our colleges and universities—including funding from countries and entities that are involved in activities that threaten America's national security," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.
The new reporting portal, launched at foreignfundinghighered.gov, represents a significant upgrade from previous disclosure systems. It includes 11 additional data elements—a 61% increase in data points made available to the public—and new data visualization capabilities that make it easier to track foreign funding patterns.
McMahon specifically criticized "years of neglect by the Biden Administration, which failed to effectively enforce Section 117 and shuttered public-facing accountability instruments."
The Biden administration's approach to foreign funding disclosures was indeed markedly different. While Section 117 has existed since 1986, enforcement was inconsistent across administrations. The Trump administration has made foreign funding transparency a priority, launching investigations, upgrading reporting systems, and publicly releasing data in ways designed to generate scrutiny.
This political dimension adds complexity to the data. Supporters argue the transparency is long overdue and essential for national security. Critics suggest the focus on foreign funding—particularly from China—reflects broader geopolitical tensions rather than genuine concerns about academic integrity.
Regardless of political motivations, the data itself is revealing. American universities have accepted billions of dollars from countries of concern, often with minimal public accountability for what those funds purchased.
What Universities Say
Universities defend foreign funding as essential to their global missions and research capabilities.
Institutions argue that:
Global collaboration drives innovation: Scientific and academic progress requires international cooperation. Funding from foreign sources enables partnerships that advance human knowledge.
International students and scholars enrich education: Universities serve students and researchers from around the world, and foreign funding often supports programs that make this possible.
Transparency already exists: Universities note they comply with federal disclosure requirements (albeit sometimes late) and that funding sources are generally known to relevant stakeholders.
Academic freedom protects integrity: Universities maintain that academic freedom and institutional policies prevent foreign funders from improperly influencing research or teaching.
National benefits exceed risks: The knowledge, talent, and innovation that result from international engagement benefit America more than the risks of foreign influence.
These arguments have merit. International collaboration has produced enormous scientific and technological advances. Many foreign-funded programs serve legitimate educational purposes. And universities do have policies designed to protect academic integrity.
But the sheer scale of funding from countries of concern—$2.3 billion to just five institutions—raises questions about whether existing safeguards are sufficient.
The National Security Perspective
National security experts view the foreign funding differently than university administrators do.
From a national security perspective, the concerns include:
Strategic intelligence gathering: Foreign entities use funding relationships to identify, recruit, and cultivate American researchers working on sensitive projects. Even unclassified research can provide valuable intelligence when aggregated.
Technology acquisition: Funding creates channels for foreign entities to access American technological expertise and innovations before they're publicly available or commercialized.
Talent pipelines: Foreign funding helps identify promising graduate students and researchers who can be recruited to work for foreign governments or companies, draining American talent.
Influence operations: Substantial funding gives foreign entities leverage over institutional decisions, potentially limiting criticism or shaping programming to align with foreign interests.
Economic espionage: In fields with commercial applications, foreign funding can facilitate transfer of intellectual property that undermines American economic competitiveness.
Dependency creation: Large foreign funding flows create financial dependencies that make universities reluctant to sever relationships even when security concerns emerge.
These risks don't mean all foreign funding threatens national security. But $2.3 billion from countries of concern—entities specifically designated as threats—represents a genuine vulnerability that may not be adequately managed by current policies.
The Regulatory Gap
Current federal regulations require disclosure of foreign funding but don't actually restrict it. The Department of Education has no authority to prohibit universities from accepting money from countries of concern.
Section 117 requires disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts over $250,000. That's it. Universities must report the funding, but they're free to accept it regardless of the source.
This creates a regulatory gap. Universities must disclose that they're taking money from entities that threaten national security, but nothing prevents them from taking that money. And if they fail to disclose or disclose late, the penalties—while potentially severe—are rarely enforced.
The Department of Education's recent investigations represent a more aggressive enforcement posture, but the fundamental problem remains: Current law provides transparency but not restriction.
Some policymakers have proposed legislation that would:
- Prohibit universities from accepting funding from designated hostile foreign entities
- Require more detailed disclosures about what foreign funding purchases
- Mandate security reviews of foreign-funded research in sensitive fields
- Impose automatic penalties for disclosure violations
- Create federal oversight of certain international partnerships
None of these proposals have been enacted. Until they are, universities remain free to accept billions from countries of concern as long as they disclose it—eventually.
What Happens Next
The release of comprehensive foreign funding data through the new portal creates pressure for action from multiple directions.
Congressional scrutiny: Members of Congress concerned about foreign influence will use this data to press for hearings, investigations, and potentially new legislation restricting foreign funding.
Administrative enforcement: The Department of Education has already launched four investigations and will likely pursue more based on the newly disclosed data, particularly focusing on late or inaccurate reporting.
Public pressure: Transparency about funding from countries of concern will fuel activism from groups concerned about foreign influence, potentially affecting university reputations and donor relations.
University policy changes: Institutions may voluntarily restrict or screen foreign funding more carefully to avoid controversy, even without legal requirements to do so.
Geopolitical tensions: Broader U.S.-China tensions and concerns about other adversarial nations will continue driving political focus on foreign funding regardless of specific university actions.
The data shows that five elite universities have taken $2.3 billion from countries of concern over nearly four decades. That's already happened—the money is spent, the relationships are established, and whatever benefits foreign entities received have already been delivered.
The question now is whether American universities will continue accepting billions from entities that threaten national security, or whether transparency will finally create accountability.
The Bottom Line
Harvard: $610 million from countries of concern. MIT: $490 million. NYU: $462 million. Stanford: $418 million. Yale: $400 million.
These aren't abstractions. They're real dollars from real entities that federal law identifies as threats to American national security. Over nearly forty years, five elite universities accepted $2.3 billion from these sources.
For context, that's more than the entire endowments of hundreds of American universities. It's enough to fully fund world-class research programs, provide scholarships to tens of thousands of students, or build state-of-the-art facilities across multiple campuses.
Instead, it flowed from countries of concern into institutions that already have billions in endowments and receive billions more in federal research funding.
What did those countries and entities receive in return? The disclosure requirements don't fully answer that question. But they got something—access, influence, knowledge, relationships, or capabilities they valued enough to invest billions of dollars over decades.
The new Department of Education portal makes this information public. What happens with that transparency—whether it leads to meaningful accountability or becomes just another data point in ongoing political debates—remains to be seen.
But at minimum, American taxpayers and students now know: The most elite American universities have taken billions from countries that threaten national security. And they're still doing it.
Originally published on University Herald
© 2024 University Herald, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
