By: Fern Sidman

On Thursday, House Republican Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik and House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) issued a sweeping demand for transparency from Harvard University, calling on interim President Alan Garber to release a full accounting of the institution’s ties to entities affiliated with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The request, framed in a detailed letter, sets a deadline of August 7, 2025, and underscores the growing scrutiny U.S. universities face over academic and financial relationships with Beijing. According to lawmakers, whistleblowers have surfaced evidence that Harvard not only maintains long-standing collaborations with CCP-controlled institutions but has also provided training to cadres being prepared for senior leadership positions within the Party.

At the center of the lawmakers’ demand are whistleblower allegations pointing to Harvard’s connections with the Central Organization Department of the CCP Central Committee, a body described by analysts as one of the most powerful organs within China’s political system. The department is tasked with overseeing personnel appointments across the Party, training future leaders, and embedding “Xi Jinping Thought” into the fabric of political governance.

Lawmakers cited evidence suggesting Harvard has cultivated ties with elite CCP members, providing platforms for exchanges and academic training. Of particular concern is the relationship between the Harvard Kennedy School and the Chinese Executive Leadership Academy Pudong (CELAP), which operates under the supervision of the CCP’s Organization Department.

Under this partnership, CCP elites identified for promotion to senior leadership reportedly participate in training programs hosted by Harvard in the United States. Publicly available records show that as far back as 2016, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences noted that cadres trained under the Organization Department were being sent abroad to institutions like the Kennedy School for specialized education.

In their letter, Stefanik and Moolenaar requested all documentation of Harvard’s ties with PRC or CCP-controlled entities dating from January 1, 2015, to the present. Specifically, lawmakers called for:

Contracts, agreements, or records of partnerships between Harvard and PRC-affiliated entities.

A comprehensive list of financial and non-financial benefits received by the university from Chinese ministries, state-owned enterprises, universities, military affiliates, and other organizations tied to the CCP.

Records related to academic exchanges, training programs, and research collaborations involving CCP cadres or PRC-controlled institutions.

The lawmakers requested that financial data be submitted in native Microsoft Excel format, signaling their intention to conduct a granular review of the flows of funds and benefits.

The Harvard inquiry forms part of a broader national reckoning with the extent of CCP influence in U.S. higher education. Over the past two decades, China has invested heavily in forging academic partnerships abroad, creating pipelines of cooperation that often blur the lines between legitimate scholarly exchange and state-directed influence operations.

In the early 2000 s, Beijing established Confucius Institutes across American campuses as vehicles for cultural and language instruction. While billed as benign educational initiatives, these institutes drew bipartisan criticism for serving as instruments of Chinese soft power. By 2021, under pressure from Congress and the Department of Education, nearly all Confucius Institutes in the U.S. had closed, with universities citing concerns over transparency and academic freedom.

The Department of Justice launched its China Initiative in 2018, a program aimed at countering Chinese espionage and influence in academic and research institutions. Several high-profile prosecutions ensued, including the 2020 arrest of Dr. Charles Lieber, then-chair of Harvard’s Chemistry Department. Lieber was convicted of concealing ties to China’s “Thousand Talents Program” and failing to disclose significant payments from Wuhan University of Technology while receiving U.S. federal grants.

Although the initiative was officially wound down in 2022 following criticism of its scope, its investigations underscored the scale of undisclosed Chinese engagement in American academia.

Harvard has yet to issue a comprehensive response to the latest congressional demands. In previous instances, the university has argued that international collaborations are essential for research and that compliance with U.S. laws remains paramount. Still, the Lieber case and growing bipartisan concerns about foreign influence have placed Harvard at the center of a debate over how far universities should go in scrutinizing overseas partnerships.

The current allegations differ from past controversies in one key respect: they focus not on individual faculty conduct but on institutional-level relationships with CCP-controlled entities. If substantiated, the claims that Harvard has provided training to rising Party elites could draw new scrutiny not only from Congress but also from federal agencies overseeing national security and higher education policy.

While Stefanik and Moolenaar are leading the current inquiry, concerns about Chinese influence in U.S. universities have long been bipartisan. Previous congressional hearings have highlighted the need for universities to disclose foreign funding, citing instances where U.S. institutions received millions in unreported contributions from Chinese sources.

The Department of Education has repeatedly found universities in violation of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which requires disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts exceeding $250,000. Between 2014 and 2019, more than a dozen universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, came under scrutiny for incomplete reporting of foreign funding.

The scrutiny of Harvard comes amid a broader deterioration in U.S.–China relations. Strategic competition between Washington and Beijing now extends across military, economic, technological, and academic domains. Congress has consistently framed higher education as a critical front in this competition, arguing that China leverages academic partnerships to advance its global influence.

The specific mention of Harvard’s ties to the CCP Organization Department elevates the stakes further. Unlike cultural or research collaborations, training CCP elites carries symbolic weight, potentially aligning American institutions with the grooming of cadres who will oversee China’s governance and foreign policy.

The Select Committee on the CCP and the Committee on Education and the Workforce have given Harvard until August 7, 2025, to comply with their request. If the university fails to produce the requested documents, lawmakers could escalate the matter through subpoenas or recommend tighter federal oversight of foreign partnerships in higher education.

Meanwhile, the investigation could prompt other universities to proactively review their own engagements with PRC-affiliated entities. Given Harvard’s prominence in global academia, the outcome of this inquiry may set a precedent for how American institutions navigate partnerships with China in the future.

The congressional demand represents more than an isolated dispute between lawmakers and a university. It highlights a larger question facing American higher education: how to balance the pursuit of global academic exchange with the imperatives of national security and transparency.

For Harvard, the allegations strike at the heart of its reputation as a global leader in research and policy training. For Washington, the outcome may determine whether universities remain open channels of international engagement or become more tightly regulated arenas in an era of geopolitical competition.

What is clear is that, by targeting Harvard’s ties with the CCP Organization Department, lawmakers have placed the university at the intersection of two powerful forces: the tradition of academic openness and the growing demands of strategic vigilance in a world reshaped by rivalry with Beijing.