Enhanced monitoring ‘politicising’ foreign donations from Qatar

US institutions have taken more money from Qatar than any other country, according to a new White House funding portal, but scholars say the exercise shows the dangers of “politicising” foreign donations.

Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, institutions have been forced to disclose foreign source gifts and contracts with a value of $250,000 (£186,000) or more.

Launched in January, the Department of Education’s new foreign funding reporting portal shows that $62.4 billion (£45.8 billion) has been disclosed. The portal includes some funding from as far back as 1981.

Analysis of the data shows that Qatar contributed $6.6 billion to date – the largest of all 194 countries.

The figures have been picked up by a number of right-wing websites as evidence of Qatari influence in the US. However, the data shows that the vast majority of these funds went to institutions with branch campuses in the Gulf country.

Alexander Cooley, professor of political science at Barnard College, said releasing raw data without context or analysis invites politicisation.

“Simply listing the country of origin offers a very crude snapshot of the amount and provenance of foreign funds.”

Instead of focusing on the country of origin, Cooley said legitimate concerns about foreign funding should revolve around the purpose, terms and stewardship of these funds.

“Funding from authoritarian countries should be scrutinised to ensure that it is transparent, that its acceptance does not compromise academic freedom or research integrity, and that the administration of these funds is not subject to interference by the funder.”

He said universities should be attentive to reputational risks, such as whether accepting such funds might be perceived as legitimising a repressive regime or limiting critical enquiry on sensitive or political topics.

It is important to establish clear, sector-wide standards for vetting foreign gifts and contracts and for reporting on these donations, added Cooley.

“The question is whether this federal government can do so credibly and enforce these requirements in a non-discriminatory fashion.”

Cornell University has received the most Qatari funding at $2.3 billion, followed by Carnegie Mellon University ($1 billion), Texas A&M University ($993 million), Georgetown University ($971 million) and Northwestern University ($734 million).

Texas A&M decided to close its flagship campus in Qatar in 2024, which some scholars said reflected the growing political influence on US institutions.

Cooley said the domestic private sector remains a more attractive alternative for funding than soliciting foreign support, which is perceived as potentially politicised and subject to heightened scrutiny.

Kevin Kinser, professor of education at Pennsylvania State University, said colleges are “in the cross hairs” because the Trump administration views international partnerships as inherently inappropriate as they are seen as taking opportunities and resources away from the local community.

There are also concerns around whether foreign countries get access to technology or expertise that has national security implications.

Whether universities see expansion as “worth the risk” will depend on how much pressure they are under financially, Kinser said.

“Universities are always looking to diversify their revenue stream, but international partnerships and funding is not going to make up the difference, particularly if increasing international funding causes greater scrutiny of university activities.”

Qatar was followed in the data by the UK ($5.8 billion), Germany ($4.4 billion), China ($4.1 billion), Canada ($4 billion) and Saudi Arabia ($3.9 billion).

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com