Bipartisan University Foreign Funding Bill Targets China and Qatar’s Grip on American Campuses

The moment Washington is having with American universities is almost overdue. With sporadic disclosure scandals and the occasional congressional hearing where a university president writhed under interrogation, the debate over foreign funding in higher education has been going in slow circles for years. After that, it would fade. Donations continued to come in. The branch campuses continued to open. The slow circle has now become more acute with the passage of the Defending American Research Act and the No Branch Campuses in Hostile Countries Act.

Reps. join Senator Rick Scott. The legislation was drafted by Josh Gottheimer and Elise Stefanik with minimal room for interpretation. Scott claimed that America had enemies and behaved as such. Stefanik cited millions of dollars coming into elite universities from China and Qatar, which she claimed had bought access to research with national security implications as well as influence. The Democrat among the three, Gottheimer, was even more direct, stating that American taxpayer funds shouldn’t be given to universities that accept funding from hostile countries. He said, “Full stop.” The majority of the work was done by that phrase.

The bills’ mechanics are more limited than their rhetoric. Universities requesting federal R&D grants would be required by the Defending American Research Act to attest that they do not run branch campuses in hostile or dangerous nations. The companion bill would prohibit federal R&D awards for five years to any institution that receives foreign government funding for research related to national security, such as biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and quantum information. When it comes to academic budgeting, five years is a long time. Enough time to ruin a research project.

The bipartisan nature of this bill is noteworthy because it is less common than it might seem. The American university, especially the elite American university, has evolved into something akin to a political symbol, admired by one side and viewed with suspicion by the other. The fact that Stefanik and Gottheimer signed the same law is the kind of minor detail that indicates the politics of foreign influence have changed to the point where even institutions that are typically protected by prestige are now vulnerable.

The House Ways and Means Committee is having a different but connected discussion, where Reps. The Providing Distance Education for Foreign Institutions Act was proposed by Brad Schneider and Lloyd Smucker. It is a more subdued bill that tackles a more subdued issue. The federal Title IV loan program is used by about 400 international schools, but in the post-pandemic environment, the rule that prohibits any online instruction from qualifying has become ludicrous. Nowadays, the majority of universities offer hybrid courses. The gap has affected American students studying overseas. Schneider made a pragmatic argument that American students who are already deeply in debt shouldn’t be denied aid because some of their coursework is conducted remotely.

The contrast is difficult to ignore. The goal of one set of bills is to drive out hostile foreign currency. Another seeks to reintegrate American students. When taken as a whole, they point to a Congress attempting, albeit unevenly, to determine the true nature of the relationship between American higher education and the rest of the world. It is another matter entirely whether the universities themselves are prepared for that dialogue. Some have spent years getting ready. You can tell that others are still holding out hope that the sluggish circle will begin to spin once more.