New report sounds alarm on 'staggering' amount of foreign money pouring into US universities
FIRST ON FOX: A new report from a nonprofit and nonpartisan government watchdog is shedding light on the tens of billions of dollars that have poured into U.S. universities in recent years, including $20 billion to some of the most prestigious universities in the country.
The report, produced by Americans for Public Trust and released this week, found that $60 billion in foreign gifts and contracts were funneled into American colleges and universities, including $20 billion alone to elite schools like Harvard, Yale, and others.
Within that total, $795 million came from nations that are long-standing adversaries to the United States, including China, Russia, Venezuela and Yemen.
"Alarmingly, many of these schools are also top research universities that handle sensitive information and intellectual property," the study states.
The report amplifies concerns that this money is coming into American universities with strings attached and peddling influence from foreign actors overseas.
"For far too long, a staggering amount of foreign money has flowed into our colleges and universities with little to no transparency or oversight," Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told Fox News Digital.
"Much of these foreign funds can be traced back to countries that have well-established adversarial relationships with the United States or engage in direct or indirect malign activities against our country. It is no coincidence that, in the same time period, we've seen a rise in anti-American demonstrations and radical ideas being cultivated at these institutions. Elected leaders need to take action to crack down on reporting lapses at these institutions to increase accountability and raise public awareness about the entities and individuals influencing these institutions."
Anti-Israel protests have erupted on college campuses across the country in recent years, and the report states that threat in 2024, "some of the schools that received the most Qatari money included Ivy League members Harvard and Cornell Universities.
"Sadly, both schools have seen a sharp uptick in antisemitic violence and rhetoric since the horrific invasion of Israel by the terrorist organization Hamas in October 2023."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The report also documents concerns about money from China pouring into Ivy League institutions. "The effects of monies flowing into college campuses from China are dangerous and widespread," the report states. "In 2024, China poured over $175 billion into U.S. schools, and the historic breadth of this vast enterprise cannot be understated; Americans for Public Trust has already previously uncovered nearly $130 million in Chinese funding to the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania alone over a roughly five-year period."
The study concludes that measures need to be taken to ensure foreign influence is not prevalent at American schools, including the passage of the DETERRENT ACT, which would "deter bad actors from attempting to buy influence, conduct espionage, and sow propaganda and discord across the United States via our higher education system."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
The U.S.-China leverage game
Negotiations usually boil down to leverage — specifically, who has more of it. In the U.S.- China talks underway Monday in London, the question of who has the upper hand boils down to macro- versus micro-economics. The big picture: A slew of data out of China shows the massive cost that U.S. tariffs impose on the Chinese economy, reflecting both underlying economic weakness and what the nation stands to lose if no trade peace is reached. The U.S., meanwhile, has had a run of perfectly solid macroeconomic data, but has much to lose if China continues throttling supplies of rare earth minerals and other specific goods that U.S. industries desperately need. State of play: All is not well for the fundamentals of China's economy, and plunging trade with the U.S. exacerbated those problems. Chinese exports to the U.S. fell 34.5% in May from a year ago, according to Chinese National Bureau of Statistics data out Monday. Its imports from the U.S. also fell, by 18%. Consumer prices fell for the fourth consecutive month, the bureau said, while producer prices fell the most in nearly two years. The mix of moribund export activity and falling prices compounds the nation's challenges grappling with a property bust and debt overhang. Yes, but: That might make Chinese negotiators eager to make a deal. After all, the nation's leadership views maintaining stable economic conditions and good living standards as crucial for their own hold on power, and collapsing exports to the U.S. undermine that goal. But they have plenty of leverage of their own, tied to U.S. reliance on very specific Chinese exports. Reality check: China's power in this standoff is tied to its ability to restrict exports of rare earth minerals, certain electronics, and pharmaceuticals. By throttling a handful of export categories, China can potentially exact damage on the U.S. economy that's far larger than the dollar value of the lost trade flows. Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argued in an influential essay this spring that this means China has "escalation dominance," the power to escalate or de-escalate according to its goals. What they're saying: "The United States gets vital goods from China that cannot be replaced any time soon or made at home at anything less than prohibitive cost," Posen wrote in Foreign Affairs. In the event of aggressive escalation, he wrote, the U.S. "will face shortages of critical inputs ranging from basic ingredients of most pharmaceuticals to inexpensive semiconductors used in cars and home appliances to critical minerals for industrial processes including weapons production." The intrigue: The Wall Street Journal reported Monday morning that President Trump has authorized his negotiating team to loosen export restrictions on jet engines and other products as part of the talks, citing people familiar.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
