$67.6 Billion: What Foreign Money Actually Buys at American Universities

American universities have received $67.6 billion in foreign funding since 1986.

Qatar gave $1.1 billion in 2025 alone. China spent hundreds of millions before reported funding mysteriously dropped. The UK provided $633 million last year. Carnegie Mellon operates an entire campus funded by Qatar. Harvard took $610 million from "countries of concern."

We know the amounts. We know the sources. Federal disclosure requirements force universities to report how much foreign money they receive and from whom.

What disclosure requirements don't reveal is what foreign entities actually get for $67.6 billion.

That's not an oversight. It's by design. Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires reporting foreign gifts and contracts. It doesn't require explaining what foreign funders receive in return.

The result is transparency without understanding. We can see the money flowing in. We can't see what's flowing out.

But decades of foreign funding relationships, investigative reporting, federal cases, and university operations reveal what $67.6 billion actually purchases. And the answer explains why countries spend billions on American universities—and why that spending should concern anyone who cares about academic independence and national security.

What Money Can Buy

Foreign funding to universities purchases tangible and intangible benefits that span education, research, influence, prestige, and capability.

The specific benefits depend on the funding source, the amount, the university, and the terms. But common categories emerge:

Educational capacity: Access to world-class education that foreign countries can't quickly build domestically.

Research access: Visibility into cutting-edge research before it's published, with potential for early application or replication.

Talent pipelines: Relationships with students and researchers who might be recruited for foreign employment.

Institutional prestige: Association with elite universities providing international legitimacy and reputation enhancement.

Policy influence: Shaping how topics relevant to donor interests are researched, taught, and discussed.

Technology acquisition: Access to research findings, methodologies, and expertise with commercial or military applications.

Soft power: Building goodwill and positive associations that serve broader strategic interests.

Network access: Connections with faculty, administrators, and students who become part of donor countries' networks.

Brand licensing: Permission to operate branch campuses using American universities' names and accreditation.

Knowledge transfer: Expertise and capability building that wouldn't occur without foreign funding relationships.

These categories aren't mutually exclusive. A single foreign funding relationship often delivers multiple benefits simultaneously. And the benefits compound over time as relationships deepen and expand.

The Qatar Model: Buying Educational Capacity

Qatar's $1.1 billion in 2025 funding—more than any other country—provides the clearest example of buying educational capacity.

Qatar doesn't just fund research or scholarships. It funds entire university campuses in Education City, Doha:

Carnegie Mellon Qatar: Computer science, business, and information systems. Nearly $1 billion in total foreign funding, almost all from Qatar.

Northwestern Qatar: Journalism and communication programs.

Georgetown Qatar: International affairs and policy studies.

Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar: Medical education and training.

Texas A&M Qatar: Engineering programs.

Virginia Commonwealth University Qatar: Art and design (closed 2020).

Qatar doesn't have the indigenous capacity to provide elite education in these fields. Building domestic institutions would take decades and might never achieve the prestige of American universities.

So Qatar imports the capacity instead. For billions of dollars, Qatar gets:

Instant elite education: Qatari citizens receive Carnegie Mellon or Northwestern degrees without leaving the country.

International credibility: Operating campuses of elite American universities signals Qatar is modern, sophisticated, and globally connected.

Knowledge economy foundation: Education in technology, business, medicine, and engineering supports Qatar's strategy of reducing dependence on hydrocarbon exports.

Geopolitical prestige: Education City demonstrates Qatar's importance and attracts international attention and investment.

Control over what's taught: Funding entire campuses gives Qatar leverage over curriculum and programming that individual research grants wouldn't provide.

The educational capacity Qatar purchases is real. Students receive legitimate degrees. Faculty provide quality instruction. The education delivered is comparable to what students would receive in Pittsburgh or Evanston.

But Qatar is paying for something beyond education: capability it couldn't build on its own, prestige by association, and institutional dependencies that give it influence over American universities.

The China Approach: Research Access and Talent

Before reported Chinese funding dropped mysteriously to $528 million in 2025, China spent billions on American university relationships. What did that money buy?

Research partnerships: Joint projects between Chinese and American researchers providing Chinese entities visibility into cutting-edge American research, often before publication.

Confucius Institutes: Over 100 Chinese government-funded centers at American universities teaching language and culture—while creating presence on campus and relationships with faculty and students.

Talent recruitment: Programs like Thousand Talents Plan identifying and recruiting American researchers to share expertise, sometimes without proper disclosure of Chinese affiliations or payments.

Technology access: Research funding in fields with commercial and military applications—AI, quantum computing, advanced materials, biotechnology—providing early access to American innovations.

Student support: Funding for Chinese students studying at American universities, many of whom return to China with advanced degrees and American training.

Federal cases reveal specific examples of what Chinese funding purchased:

Charles Lieber case: Harvard chemistry professor received payments from China's Thousand Talents Plan and Wuhan University of Technology while conducting federally funded research. He failed to disclose the Chinese affiliations and payments. Convicted in 2021.

Economic espionage cases: Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of researchers with stealing American trade secrets or research and providing them to Chinese entities—many cases involving individuals who had received Chinese funding while at American universities.

Unreported contracts: Multiple universities were found to have faculty receiving Chinese funding that wasn't properly disclosed, creating conflicts of interest and potential security risks.

What China bought wasn't always illegal. Research partnerships, student exchanges, and academic collaboration are normal parts of international engagement. But the scale, the targeting of strategic fields, and the documented cases of improper disclosure and technology theft reveal a pattern of strategic investment designed to acquire American research capabilities.

The mysterious drop in reported Chinese funding to $528 million raises obvious questions: Did Chinese spending actually decline? Or did it go underground to avoid scrutiny? If universities will report $2 billion in total foreign funding late, how much Chinese funding might still be hidden?

The UK Purchase: Legitimacy Through Association

The United Kingdom's $633 million purchases something different than Qatar's educational capacity or China's research access: legitimacy through association.

British funding primarily supports:

Research collaboration: Joint projects between British and American researchers advancing scientific knowledge in fields from medicine to engineering.

Student exchanges: Programs enabling British students to study at American universities and Americans to study in the UK.

Cultural programs: British foundations and charities supporting arts, humanities, and cultural studies that advance understanding of British history and society.

Pharmaceutical research: British pharmaceutical companies funding medical research at American universities, often with commercial applications.

University partnerships: Direct relationships between British universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial) and American counterparts for shared research and teaching.

What Britain gets for $633 million is largely benign: scientific collaboration that benefits both countries, student exchanges that strengthen ties, and research partnerships that advance knowledge.

But even friendly allied funding purchases something: Britain maintains relevance and relationships with American research communities. British pharmaceutical companies gain access to American medical research. British universities build prestige through American partnerships. And British cultural institutions shape how British history and society are studied and taught in America.

The purchase is subtle. It doesn't look like influence buying. But $633 million ensures British perspectives, interests, and priorities remain visible and relevant in American higher education.

The Saudi Strategy: Reputation Rehabilitation

Saudi Arabia's $285 million in 2025 funding purchases something specific: reputation rehabilitation.

Saudi funding has historically supported:

Middle East studies programs: Establishing and funding programs studying the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Gulf states.

Islamic studies centers: Supporting research and teaching about Islam and Islamic civilization.

Energy research: Funding research on petrochemicals, energy technologies, and related fields where Saudi interests are strong.

Student scholarships: Supporting Saudi students studying at American universities, many sponsored by Saudi government programs.

What Saudi Arabia purchases with this funding is influence over how Saudi Arabia, the Gulf region, and Islam are studied, taught, and discussed at American universities. This matters because:

Controversial issues: Saudi Arabia faces criticism over human rights, women's rights, the Yemen war, the Jamal Khashoggi killing, and other controversies. Funding Middle East studies programs potentially shapes academic discourse on these sensitive topics.

Academic legitimacy: Association with elite American universities provides legitimacy and prestige for a country seeking to improve its international image.

Future relationships: Supporting Saudi students at American universities creates networks of US-educated Saudis who maintain ties to both countries.

Energy sector connections: Funding energy research builds relationships with American researchers and institutions in fields critical to Saudi economic interests.

The funding doesn't require universities to avoid criticism of Saudi Arabia. But it creates relationships and dependencies that make sharp criticism less likely. Programs depending on Saudi funding are unlikely to become centers of human rights advocacy targeting their funder.

Saudi Arabia purchases not silence, but softer treatment—academic discourse that acknowledges controversies while maintaining relationships with the funder.

The Switzerland Purchase: Commercial Research Access

Switzerland's $451 million—more than Germany or Japan—purchases primarily commercial research access.

Swiss funding overwhelmingly comes from pharmaceutical companies:

Novartis: Swiss pharmaceutical giant funding medical and biological research at American universities.

Roche: Another major Swiss pharmaceutical company supporting biomedical research.

Other Swiss companies: Various Swiss corporations funding research in their business areas.

What Switzerland (or rather, Swiss companies) purchases:

Early research access: Funding university research provides companies early visibility into promising findings before publication or commercialization.

Talent relationships: Funding creates relationships with researchers who might consult, collaborate, or join companies later.

Research direction: While companies typically don't control research findings, funding influences which research questions get pursued and which get ignored due to lack of funding.

Patent opportunities: In some cases, funding agreements include intellectual property provisions giving funders rights to commercialize research results.

Academic credibility: Research conducted at elite universities carries more credibility than company-internal research, even when company-funded.

Swiss pharmaceutical funding is generally less controversial than funding from Qatar or China because:

• Switzerland is a democratic ally with aligned interests
• Pharmaceutical research serves public health goals
• Companies seek commercial rather than strategic national benefits
• Transparency around pharmaceutical funding is relatively good

But $451 million still purchases substantial influence over American biomedical research directions and priorities. Companies fund research likely to advance their commercial interests, not necessarily research that would serve the broadest public health goals.

Branch Campuses: Buying the Brand

Foreign-funded branch campuses represent the most complete purchase: not just research or students, but entire institutional operations.

Carnegie Mellon Qatar: Nearly $1 billion in foreign funding, almost all from Qatar Foundation. An entire campus—facilities, faculty, operations—funded by a foreign state-backed entity.

Northwestern Qatar: Journalism program funded entirely by Qatar Foundation in a country that criminalizes press criticism of the government.

Georgetown Qatar: International affairs program funded by Qatar, teaching diplomacy and policy in a country with very different political system than the United States.

NYU Abu Dhabi: Similar model—entire NYU campus in UAE funded by Emirati government.

NYU Shanghai: NYU campus in China operating under Chinese government oversight.

What foreign entities purchase through branch campuses:

Brand licensing: Permission to operate using the American university's name, reputation, and accreditation.

Educational delivery: Faculty, curriculum, and teaching that would take decades to develop domestically.

Institutional dependence: Once a university operates a foreign campus, closing it becomes extremely difficult—creating long-term leverage for the host country.

Reputational association: The university's presence signals that the host country is sophisticated, modern, and globally engaged.

Influence over programming: While universities insist they maintain control, $50-60 million per year in annual funding creates subtle pressures shaping what's taught and studied.

Access to talent: Faculty and students at branch campuses become part of the host country's networks.

Branch campuses are the most expensive foreign purchase, but they deliver the most comprehensive benefits to funders: not just research or students, but institutional presence, brand association, and deep dependencies.

What Money Buys in Specific Fields

Foreign funding purchases different things depending on academic fields:

STEM Fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math)

Research access: Visibility into cutting-edge research before publication Technology transfer: Potential acquisition of research with commercial or military applications
Talent relationships: Connections with researchers who might be recruited Capability building: Training in advanced technologies and methodologies Early commercialization: Access to research findings for business development

Why it matters: STEM research often has dual-use applications—civilian and military. Foreign funding in AI, quantum computing, advanced materials, or biotechnology provides access to research with national security implications.

Social Sciences and Humanities

Discourse shaping: Influence over how topics relevant to donor interests are researched and taught Legitimacy building: Academic research providing credibility for donor country perspectives Network creation: Relationships with scholars who might later advise governments or write about donor countries Controversy avoidance: Reduced likelihood of sharp criticism from programs depending on donor funding

Why it matters: How we understand other countries, cultures, and political systems shapes foreign policy and public opinion. Funding Middle East studies or China studies influences academic and policy discourse.

Professional Schools (Business, Law, Policy, Journalism)

Future leader access: Relationships with students who will become business leaders, policymakers, and journalists Curriculum influence: Shaping how business practices, legal systems, or governance are taught Network building: Creating alumni networks connected to both institutions and donor countries Prestige association: Business school or policy school partnerships providing legitimacy

Why it matters: Professional schools train future leaders. Influence over professional education shapes future business practices, policy approaches, and journalism standards.

Medical Schools

Research direction: Influence over which diseases, treatments, and medical questions get researched Clinical partnerships: Relationships with American medical institutions providing training and expertise Pharmaceutical access: Early visibility into research relevant to drug development International credibility: Medical research at American universities carries global credibility

Why it matters: Medical research affects human health globally. Foreign funding shapes research priorities and potentially serves funder commercial rather than public health interests.

The Intangibles Money Buys

Beyond tangible benefits, foreign funding purchases intangibles that are harder to measure but equally valuable:

Goodwill: Positive associations with donor countries among university communities Access: Ability to contact faculty, administrators, and students based on funding relationships Patience: Willingness to engage with donor countries rather than condemn them Presumption of legitimacy: Association with elite universities signaling donor countries are sophisticated partners Policy influence: Shaping academic research that influences policy debates Cultural presence: Visibility and normalization of donor country perspectives on campus Future relationships: Today's funded students become tomorrow's leaders maintaining ties to funders

These intangibles are why countries spend billions on universities. The direct benefits—research access, talent recruitment, educational capacity—are valuable. But the long-term cultivation of relationships, networks, and positive associations may be even more valuable.

A student who receives scholarship funding from Qatar, studies at Carnegie Mellon Doha, works with Qatari organizations, and maintains Qatari connections throughout their career represents exactly what Qatar's $1.1 billion is designed to produce: networks of individuals with positive views of Qatar and incentives to maintain relationships.

What Money Doesn't Buy (Usually)

It's important to acknowledge what foreign funding typically doesn't purchase:

Direct censorship: Foreign funders rarely explicitly demand that universities avoid specific topics or suppress particular research. The influence is more subtle.

Fraudulent research: Foreign funding doesn't typically involve fabricating research findings. The research itself is usually legitimate even if motivated by funder interests.

Institutional control: Foreign funders don't gain voting control over university governance or direct authority over institutional decisions. The influence operates through financial dependency and relationship maintenance.

Faculty loyalty: Individual faculty members usually maintain intellectual independence even when benefiting from foreign funding. But the aggregate effect of funding across many faculty creates institutional pressures.

Student indoctrination: Foreign-funded programs don't typically indoctrinate students in funder ideologies. But they do shape what topics are covered, what perspectives are presented, and what's considered acceptable discourse.

The influence foreign money buys operates through subtle mechanisms rather than direct control. This makes it harder to identify and address—but no less real.

The ROI Question: Is $67.6 Billion Worth It?

From foreign funders' perspectives, $67.6 billion represents excellent return on investment:

Qatar's $1.1 billion per year purchases educational capacity that would cost tens of billions to build domestically and might never achieve comparable prestige. The education provided is real, but so is the dependency created and the influence purchased.

China's historical billions purchased research access, talent relationships, and technology acquisition that advanced Chinese technological capabilities in strategically important fields. The $528 million now reported may significantly understate actual Chinese funding.

UK's $633 million maintains British relevance in American research communities and shapes how British history, culture, and policy are studied and taught. For a relatively modest investment, the UK ensures continued prominence in American higher education.

Saudi Arabia's $285 million purchases reputation rehabilitation and influence over Middle East studies discourse worth far more than the dollar amount in PR value and soft power.

Switzerland's $451 million gives pharmaceutical companies early access to American medical research with commercial applications worth billions.

The donors wouldn't keep spending billions if they weren't getting value. The fact that foreign funding has grown from zero in 1986 to $5.2 billion annually by 2025 suggests donors believe the investment is worthwhile.

What Students and Faculty Get (and Don't Get)

The beneficiaries of foreign funding aren't just the donors and universities—students and faculty also gain benefits:

Students receive:

• Scholarships and financial aid they might not otherwise access
• Opportunities to study abroad at foreign-funded campuses
• Access to foreign-funded research opportunities
• Education at institutions with more resources due to foreign funding

Faculty receive:

• Research funding enabling work that wouldn't otherwise be possible
• International collaboration opportunities
• Travel and exchange programs
• Resources for labs, equipment, and research support

These benefits are real. Students genuinely benefit from foreign scholarships. Faculty genuinely conduct valuable research with foreign funding. The education and research enabled by foreign funding often serves public good.

But students and faculty also bear costs:

Students: Education at institutions with foreign dependencies, potential exposure to curricula shaped by foreign funding, degrees from universities under scrutiny for foreign influence

Faculty: Pressure to maintain funding relationships, potential conflicts of interest between research integrity and funder interests, vulnerability to allegations of foreign influence

The benefits and costs distribute unevenly: wealthy universities with large endowments could refuse problematic foreign funding and maintain operations. Universities dependent on foreign funding can't easily walk away from relationships even when problematic.

The National Security Calculus

From a national security perspective, $67.6 billion in foreign funding creates genuine concerns:

Research security: Foreign funding provides access to research in fields with national security implications. Even unclassified research can be strategically valuable when aggregated.

Talent vulnerability: Foreign funding relationships create channels for identifying and potentially recruiting American researchers and students.

Technology proliferation: Research funded by foreign entities may lead to technology transfer to countries whose interests diverge from American interests.

Influence operations: Foreign funding enables influence over how topics relevant to foreign policy are researched, taught, and discussed at institutions educating future policymakers.

Dependency creation: Universities financially dependent on foreign funding face pressures that may constrain their ability to conduct research or host discussions that funders oppose.

These concerns are most acute with funding from "countries of concern"—entities specifically designated as threatening American interests. The $2.3 billion that Harvard, MIT, NYU, Stanford, and Yale received from countries of concern represents the highest-risk category of foreign funding.

But even funding from allies creates dependencies and influences that merit attention. The UK's $633 million is far less concerning than China's funding, but it still shapes American academic discourse in ways that serve British interests.

The Transparency Gap

Section 117 requires reporting foreign funding amounts and sources. What it doesn't require:

Terms and conditions: What funders received in return for their money Governance arrangements: What control or influence funders exercise Intellectual property: Who owns research results and how they can be used Future commitments: What ongoing obligations universities accepted Indirect benefits: What access, relationships, or intangibles funders gained

This transparency gap means we can see $67.6 billion flowing in but can't fully see what flowed out. We know Qatar gave $1.1 billion but don't know exactly what contractual rights Qatar secured. We know Carnegie Mellon received nearly $1 billion but don't know the detailed terms of its Qatar Foundation agreements.

Reform proposals call for enhanced disclosure requiring universities to report not just amounts and sources but also what foreign funders receive. Until such reforms are enacted, transparency about what $67.6 billion actually purchased remains limited.

What $67.6 Billion Bought

Since 1986, foreign entities have given American universities $67.6 billion. What did they get?

Educational capacity that would cost tens of billions to build domestically

Research access before publication in strategically important fields

Talent relationships with researchers and students who became part of funder networks

Institutional prestige through association with elite American universities

Policy influence shaping academic discourse on topics relevant to funder interests

Technology acquisition accessing American innovations with commercial and military applications

Soft power building goodwill and positive associations serving broader strategic goals

Network access connecting funders with faculty, administrators, and students

Brand licensing operating branch campuses using American university names

Knowledge transfer building capabilities that wouldn't exist without foreign funding

The benefits vary by funder, amount, and institution. Qatar's $1.1 billion purchases different benefits than the UK's $633 million or Switzerland's $451 million. But across $67.6 billion, foreign entities purchased influence, access, and capability that serve their strategic interests.

The funding isn't charity. It's investment. And the return on investment—measured in educational capacity, research access, talent pipelines, and strategic influence—is substantial.

American universities benefit from resources foreign funding provides. Students benefit from scholarships and opportunities. Research benefits from funding that wouldn't otherwise exist.

But foreign funders benefit most of all. That's why they keep spending billions. That's why funding has grown from zero to $5.2 billion annually. And that's why understanding what $67.6 billion actually purchases is essential for anyone assessing whether the benefits to American higher education justify the influence foreign funding creates.

We now know how much foreign entities have given universities: $67.6 billion since 1986.

We now know from whom: Qatar, UK, China, Switzerland, and dozens of others.

And we now know what that money buys: influence, access, capability, and relationships that serve foreign strategic interests while creating dependencies that constrain American academic independence.

Whether that bargain serves American interests is a question every university accepting foreign funding—and every student attending them—should be asking.

Federal disclosure data on foreign funding to American universities is available at foreignfundinghighered.gov. The portal includes $67.6 billion in total disclosed foreign gifts and contracts from 1986 through December 2025, with detailed breakdowns by country, institution, and year.