To “make America great again”, President Trump and Congressional Republicans are working to limit international research collaboration in U.S. higher education. The Department of Education is investigating Harvard University; the University of California, Berkeley; and the University of Pennsylvania may violate the Higher Education Act, which requires universities to report foreign gifts and contracts worth $250,000 or more.
Policymakers further recommend lowering the threshold to $50,000 and require universities to obtain federal exemptions before signing contracts with “foreign countries of concern.” The government has also tried to ban Harvard’s international students from enrolling in international students and has provided all or part of a travel ban to people from 19 countries. After suspending student visa interviews for about a month starting in May, the government is now reviewing applicants’ social media accounts to approve or deny their visas.
At a time when the global race to develop cutting-edge technologies is accelerating, the United States should expand (rather than limit) international research partnerships.
Federal demand for foreign gift reports began in 1986 after Georgetown University received donations from the Arab government to establish its Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. Policymakers are concerned about the potential conditions that accompany them, such as the impact on the course and the threat to freedom of speech, leading to legislation requiring universities to disclose foreign funds. However, over time, compliance gradually weakened and the continuous government put the law into obsolete.
This happened in 2019, when the Trump administration resumed law enforcement and began investigating non-compliant universities, revealing billions of dollars in unreported funds. At the time, this concern was that a lack of transparency threatened academic independence and brought about national security risks.
It is understandable to wonder if foreign governments are affecting U.S. agencies. But is there any good reason to think that the current rule is valid or is it a stricter rule?
There is little evidence that decades of LAX enforcement have caused significant harm. For example, the Trump administration’s China initiative attempted to take root in academia, instead imposing a wide, indiscriminate network, leading to criminal charges against professors such as Feng Shui, Anming Hu and the Gang, based on suspicious charges. In each case, the charges are eventually dropped or the scientist is innocent, but before reputation is damaged and career derailed. Of the 162 cases prosecuted by the Ministry of Justice under the China Initiative, only about 20 involved university researchers, with at least nine of them ending with dismissed charges or acquittals. The initiative illustrates how geopolitical anxiety erodes academic freedom and undermines innocent cooperation with little gain.
Previous and current Trump administration have reviewed university research, including dual-purpose technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotic systems and laser technology, and believe they can be used to advance military goals by foreign governments, especially China. However, politicians often fail to acknowledge that most applications in these fields are non-military, including autonomous vacuum cleaners, industrial robots and autonomous vehicles. Autonomous systems have been a long-term field of global research, most of which are designed to innovate in civilians. In addition, federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, implicitly supported the study through funding.
While the report may be heavy, it requires universities to obtain federal exemptions to work with researchers who “focus on foreign countries”. Therefore, social media screening and travel bans for foreign students are also biased to prevent the entire population from interacting with U.S. agencies. These policies translate attitudes beyond transparency into gatekeepers, forcing universities to work with researchers from countries such as China to have homes of more than 1.4 billion people and are global leaders in scientific research. Past history courses on how to erode political tensions do not require relearning academic freedom.
Although the U.S. Department of Education claims to improve the process of foreign gift reporting on the first new Trump administration’s portal, it increases the amount of information in university reports. The reporting process, while aimed at increasing transparency, imposes bureaucratic costs on institutions.
Retaining an open academic environment in which innovation can flourish is not responsibility, but strategic advantages. Nevertheless, precautionary measures should be taken. Sensitive research should be classified by the federal government. Companies working with universities should set clear terms regarding who can access proprietary projects. Those who violate classification rules or contract terms should face consequences. But the default should be free, not prohibited.
To maintain America’s greatness, it is necessary to retain the openness and intellectual freedom that defines American higher education and make it the best college system in the world, which at least demonstrates its international rankings, the share of Nobel Prize winners, and its appeal to international students. An open academic environment encourages innovation, fosters critical thinking, and enables researchers to explore cutting-edge areas, including areas that are critical to national competitiveness.
If the United States is to maintain its position as a global leader in research, it must support academic freedom rather than limit it.
