A new federal tracking platform is making it easier to examine the foreign dollars flowing into Minnesota’s higher education institutions and distinguish legitimate academic partnerships from those that warrant closer scrutiny.
Concern over foreign financial influence in American universities has grown steadily in recent years. One high-profile flashpoint was the spread of Chinese government-funded Confucius Institutes on American campuses, which attracted close scrutiny for potential national security risks and curtailing of academic freedom.
The controversial programming became symbolic of a broader problem: large foreign gifts from authoritarian governments flowing into American colleges and universities with limited transparency and inconsistent reporting. This led policymakers across the political spectrum to call for the enforcement of existing federal disclosure laws after discovering billions of dollars in foreign funding that colleges and universities had failed to report.
Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, universities receiving federal financial assistance must annually disclose foreign-source gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more to the U.S. Department of Education. The new foreign funding reporting portal, which the Department launched earlier this year, now makes those disclosures publicly available and is part of a “broader transparency push by the Trump administration aimed at strengthening oversight of foreign financial ties in higher education,” according to The Center Square.
A closer look at Minnesota-specific data illustrates what these dollars look like at the state level. Since 2015, 11 Minnesota institutions have reported receiving funding from foreign sources totaling nearly $700 million, as first reported by The Center Square. The majority of the funding has flowed to the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, which disclosed roughly $457 million in foreign gifts and contracts over the past decade. Another major recipient is Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, with over $212 million in foreign contributions.
Is this level of foreign funding a cause for concern?
Not all of Minnesota’s millions of dollars raise red flags, but some do. The tracking platform designates certain dollars as “countries of concern funding” based on United States Code, which includes governments whose strategic interests do not consistently align with ours.
For example, the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities has received $26.9 million from China, one such identified country of concern. The dollars represent about 17 percent of the U’s total reported foreign funding, making China’s contributions its fifth-largest foreign funding source. Its top reported sources include the United Kingdom ($88.1 million), Ireland ($74.9 million), England ($56.5 million), and Switzerland ($53 million). The U of M closed its Confucius Institute in 2019, citing a “shift” in institutional priorities and compliance with federal policy, amid heightened national scrutiny of concerns about academic freedom and foreign government influence.
St. Cloud State University, another institution that previously operated a Confucius Institute on campus, has reportedly received $1.7 million from China, which represents 67 percent of its total funding from foreign sources. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science has received $8.7 million from China, accounting for about 4 percent of its foreign funding. Carleton College reported receiving its entire $1 million in foreign funding from China.
International collaboration has long been part of the university model, but the dramatic expansion of foreign money in higher education nationwide continues to demand transparency and oversight.
When funding originates (directly or indirectly) from governments with different priorities than the U.S., the risk is not always immediate. Foreign funding in higher education can have soft power influence, subtly shaping research, public messaging, or a college’s priorities in ways that are not transparent to students, parents, or taxpayers. The controversy surrounding Confucius Institutes offers a cautionary tale.
While most Confucius Institutes have closed, a report from the National Association of Scholars indicates that this “has not deterred the Chinese government from seeking alternative means of influencing American colleges and universities,” including persuading higher education institutions to reopen and “rebrand Confucius Institute-like programs under other names.”
This isn’t to say that every foreign partnership is nefarious, nor is it a case against foreign students or scholars. Consider the advances in research and scientific collaboration that have come from international academic exchange. But institutions that receive taxpayer dollars also carry a responsibility to ensure that financial relationships, particularly those involving governments of concern, do not compromise academic independence or public trust. The new transparency dashboard is a useful step toward that accountability.