Cotton Wants Investigation of China Funding at Harvard, Other Schools
“I remain concerned that millions in additional transactions with sanctioned Chinese entities may not have been reported”
Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is urging Trump’s Education Department to investigate funding given to Harvard and other schools by foreign entities, most notably China and the Chinese Communist Party.
Cotton is calling this a national security issue, which makes sense given that China has been accused of intellectual property theft for years.
Senate Republicans were very focused on this issue at the end of Trump’s first term; now they are taking it up again.
FOX News reports:
Harvard tops nation in foreign cash haul as Cotton demands probe into China funding
One Ivy League institution has taken in more money from foreign countries, including China, than any other university in the country.
The U.S. Department of Education has, for years, compiled a list of federally funded universities that have taken in funding from abroad. The Trump administration sought to revamp the agency’s online reporting portal, and, in doing so, it has shown that one institution, Harvard University, has scored more foreign funding than any other college in the country.
Harvard is in the crosshairs of Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., for its ties to China and other foreign nations because of the reams of outside cash the university has taken in. And the Senate Republican, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, wants Education Secretary Linda McMahon to open an investigation into China’s cash flow into higher education.
“I remain concerned that millions in additional transactions with sanctioned Chinese entities may not have been reported,” Cotton wrote. “Therefore, I encourage additional scrutiny of financial ties between American universities and Communist China.”
Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cotton noted that since the portal was relaunched in January, reporting data has shown that federally funded universities accepted more than $6.8 billion from “Communist China — including more than $300 million from sanctioned entities.”
“Harvard, for instance, has received more than $630 million from Chinese entities,” Cotton wrote. “This includes roughly $418,000 from organizations participating in foreign talent programs and nearly $420,000 from entities allegedly supporting unauthorized military advancements.”
Communist China’s investments in American universities undermine our innovation and national security.
I’m encouraging @EDSecMcMahon to investigate financial ties between Communist China and federally-funded universities. https://t.co/Xdpj0Zw8h0
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) July 27, 2026
The Harvard Crimson notes that Harvard is not alone in this:
Harvard is hardly the only university to receive China-linked gifts carrying financial aid preferences. The Crimson identified about $58.5 million in such gifts across 12 schools. The Justice Department did not respond to questions about why it chose to probe Harvard or whether it was reviewing the other institutions.
But Harvard accounted for nearly two-thirds of that total. The University of Chicago followed with $9.3 million, while Brown University reported $6.3 million and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported $1.9 million.
The pattern also extends far beyond China.
Harvard’s roughly $210 million in preference-related gifts came from sources attributed to 34 countries and territories. The total was more than six times that of Oregon State University, the next-highest recipient, and represented slightly more than half of all such gifts identified nationally.
Senate Republicans won’t allow the CCP to buy influence and radicalize the next generation at our universities. https://t.co/AYIXaaXAOj
— Senate Republicans (@SenateGOP) July 27, 2026
The DOJ is already looking into whether or not this foreign funding is causing any American students to be denied a place at the school.
One can only presume that what Cotton is demanding would bring more scrutiny to the nature of the funding.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hope they aren’t too yellow to do it.
Goes to a patter of behavior, yer honor.
After all, they pocketed millions in Epstein cash, knowing full well what he was when they did it (the paper trail spells it out)..
How about we expand this to create a universal publicly accessible/transparent/easily searchable database of each Univ funding from the Citizens of foreign Nations, Governments of foreign Nations, NGOs/’International orgs’ of any other Nation. Given adequate transparency the public can draw conclusions while the Gov’t can conduct more thorough investigation if warranted.
I think you are half right.
I think we should just ban foreign governments and their proxies from investing in our education system.
France invests none, Italy invests none, Britain invests none, Germany invests none, Greece invests none, Poland invests none, Hungary invests none, Czechia invests none, Japan invests none, Australia none….I could go on but none of the foreign governments investing in our universities mean us well and frankly we should be guided by which governments are doing it.
I agree!
No foreign funding of schools or mosques (and maybe property).
Can’t limit it to just Foreign gov’t. Too easy to work around and the ‘proxy’ modifier as well. Far better to aim at very clear, unambiguous targeting of Foreign Gov’t, Foreign Corporations, Citizens of any other Nation, any/all NGOs, all ‘international’ entities. IOW only those who exclusively hold US Citizenship and US domiciled Corporations.
Personally instead of a ban I’d prefer a transparent, easily searchable,.publicly available list. Filed each quarter. Fail to file on time, fail to fully disclose? Easy, make it an automatic process to seize the financial assets of the University until compliance is reached. Impose a fine of 1% of the assets and 10% of total annual budget. Do that and I guarantee the threat to the money tree will rapidly concentrate the minds of academia to cheerful willing obedience.
For clarification there should be the transparency standards to which is why I said half right.