By: Fern Sidman

The latest tranche of data released by the U.S. Department of Education has peeled back the curtain on a vast and intricate web of foreign funding flowing into American colleges and universities, illuminating a financial ecosystem whose magnitude and geopolitical implications have long been the subject of conjecture and controversy. As The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) reported on Wednesday, the newly expanded accountability portal now discloses more than $67.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts across 124,180 transactions involving 555 institutions of higher learning. Within that staggering sum, the year 2025 alone saw more than $1.1 billion arrive from Qatar and in excess of $285 million from Saudi Arabia, figures that have reignited debates about academic independence, national security, and the subtle mechanisms of foreign influence in the American intellectual sphere.

The Education Department’s portal, which until recently catalogued foreign funding only through the beginning of 2025, now incorporates an additional $5.2 billion in previously undisclosed transactions. Education Secretary Linda McMahon characterized the initiative as a watershed moment in public accountability, asserting that the American people now possess “unprecedented visibility into the foreign dollars flowing into our colleges and universities—including funding from countries and entities that are involved in activities that threaten America’s national security.” McMahon framed the portal not merely as a bureaucratic upgrade but as a strategic instrument designed to fortify the integrity of academic research and to ensure that institutions of higher learning remain resilient against coercive or covert foreign pressures.

The scale of the foreign presence revealed in the data is breathtaking. Qatar emerges as the single largest contributor, having disbursed $7.7 billion to U.S. schools over the years catalogued by the portal. China follows with $6.4 billion, then Germany at $4.7 billion, England at $4.3 billion, Saudi Arabia at $4.2 billion, Canada at $4.1 billion, Switzerland at $3.8 billion, Japan at $3.7 billion, the United Kingdom at $2 billion, and France at $1.9 billion. The prominence of Middle Eastern donors—particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia—has been a recurring focal point in the reporting of JNS, which has chronicled concerns among policymakers and analysts about the potential ramifications of such largesse for campus discourse, research priorities, and institutional governance.

At the institutional level, the concentration of Gulf state funding in a select cohort of elite universities is especially striking. Cornell University stands as the preeminent beneficiary of Qatari funding, having received approximately $2.3 billion—nearly 30 percent of all Gulf state contributions to American schools. Carnegie Mellon University follows closely with roughly $2 billion in Qatari funds, while Georgetown University and Texas A&M University each account for about $1 billion. Northwestern University’s Qatari receipts approach $766 million, with Virginia Commonwealth University receiving $383 million. Even institutions with comparatively modest Qatari ties, such as Harvard University, Houston Community College, Xavier University of Louisiana, and the University of Colorado Denver, appear in the ledger, underscoring the breadth of Qatar’s academic footprint.

Saudi Arabia’s financial engagements, while smaller in aggregate than Qatar’s, are nonetheless substantial and strategically distributed. Pennsylvania State University leads Saudi recipients with $201 million, followed by George Washington University at $176.7 million, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at $135.2 million, Arizona State University at $131.5 million, George Mason University at $129.5 million, and the University of Southern California at $125.2 million. Harvard and Stanford also figure prominently among recipients of Saudi largesse. As the JNS report noted, the dispersion of Saudi funding across both public and private institutions raises questions about the extent to which such investments may shape research agendas, policy institutes, and educational programming.

The United Arab Emirates, another consequential actor in the Gulf, has contributed $1.79 billion to U.S. schools, with the University of Colorado Boulder alone receiving nearly $470 million. New York University, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Harvard University, and MIT round out the top recipients of Emirati funds. These patterns illustrate how Gulf states have woven themselves into the fabric of American higher education through sustained, high-value partnerships that span disciplines from engineering and medicine to international affairs and public policy.

Against this backdrop of Gulf engagement, Israel’s financial contributions to American academia, totaling nearly $464 million, present a contrasting model of international academic cooperation. The data show that Brigham Young University received the largest share of Israeli funding at $52.3 million, followed by Johns Hopkins University, the University of Virginia, the University of California San Diego, Oregon Health and Science University, the University of Southern California, and Harvard University. Additional Israeli funds flowed to institutions such as the University of California San Francisco, Northwestern University, and the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. The JNS report emphasized that these investments often center on collaborative research in medicine, biotechnology, and advanced sciences, reflecting Israel’s reputation as a hub of technological innovation and scientific entrepreneurship.

The portal also records funding from a range of other Middle Eastern states, including Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, as well as controversial entries attributed to entities described as the “state of Palestine,” the “Palestinian territories,” and “Palestinian territory, occupied.” The United States does not recognize a Palestinian state, a fact that has prompted inquiries into the categorization and provenance of these funds.

According to the data, Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Brown University received funds attributed to the “state of Palestine,” while Harvard, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University received monies from the “Palestinian territories.” The entire sum attributed to “Palestinian territory, occupied” was directed to Indiana University of Pennsylvania. These designations, while bureaucratic in origin, have acquired symbolic significance in an era when campus debates over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are intensely polarized and often fraught with allegations of bias and political activism.

The renewed transparency introduced by the Education Department’s portal has thus catalyzed a broader conversation about the relationship between foreign funding and the ethos of American higher education. Proponents of robust disclosure, including figures cited in the JNS report, argue that sunlight is the most effective disinfectant, enabling students, faculty, and the public to assess whether foreign gifts and contracts compromise academic freedom or skew institutional priorities. Critics, however, caution that transparency alone may be insufficient to mitigate the subtler forms of influence that accompany large-scale financial engagements, particularly when donor governments possess explicit political or ideological objectives.

The geopolitical context in which these financial flows occur further complicates the picture. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, while key U.S. partners in certain strategic domains, are also actors in regional conflicts and diplomatic maneuvers that intersect with American interests in complex ways. As JNS has reported in related contexts, concerns about foreign influence on campus are not merely abstract; they intersect with debates over national security, counterterrorism, and the safeguarding of democratic norms. The question, therefore, is not whether foreign funding should be permitted—international collaboration has long been a cornerstone of academic advancement—but how such funding can be structured and monitored to preserve the autonomy and integrity of American institutions.

Education Secretary McMahon’s assertion that the portal inaugurates “a new era of transparency” resonates with a growing bipartisan consensus that the regulatory framework governing foreign gifts to universities requires both modernization and rigorous enforcement. The legal obligation for institutions to report such funding has existed for decades, yet compliance has historically been uneven, prompting federal scrutiny and, in some cases, enforcement actions. JNS has chronicled earlier efforts to compel universities to disclose foreign funding more comprehensively, situating the current portal as the culmination of a protracted struggle to reconcile see-through governance with the realities of globalized academia.

For the universities themselves, the revelations contained in the portal present both reputational challenges and opportunities for introspection. Institutions that have benefited from substantial foreign investment may find themselves compelled to articulate more clearly the safeguards they employ to prevent donor influence over curriculum, research, and governance. At the same time, the visibility of these funding streams could embolden stakeholders—students, alumni, and legislators alike—to demand greater accountability and to scrutinize the ethical dimensions of institutional partnerships.

In the end, the data released this week do more than quantify foreign funding; they map a terrain of influence that stretches across continents and into the heart of American intellectual life. As the JNS report observed, the stakes of this debate extend beyond balance sheets and endowments. They touch upon the foundational principles of academic freedom, the resilience of democratic institutions, and the capacity of universities to serve as forums for independent inquiry rather than conduits for external agendas. The transparency portal may not resolve these tensions, but it has indisputably brought them into sharper relief, compelling a national reckoning with the price—and the promise—of global engagement in the academy.