New Bill Threatens to Cut All DHS Funding for Universities with China Ties, Including 'Gifts in Kind'

This new piece of legislation, the DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act, is pretty straightforward: it tells colleges and universities that if they want Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding, they need to cut ties with specific Chinese organizations. Starting about a year after the bill becomes law, any school that hosts a Confucius Institute or has a “relationship” with a “Chinese entity of concern” will be completely ineligible for any DHS money. The school can only get back into the funding pool if they terminate those relationships entirely.

The Watch List: Who’s In and What’s a ‘Relationship’?

This bill doesn’t just target the well-known Confucius Institutes—the cultural centers funded by the Chinese government. It also creates a broad category called "Chinese entity of concern." This list includes any university in the People's Republic of China involved in combining military and civilian technology, linked to China’s defense industry, or connected to any security, defense, police, or intelligence group under the Chinese government or Communist Party. Basically, if a Chinese university has a defense or intelligence tie, it’s on the list.

What counts as a "relationship" is also extremely broad. It’s not just formal research contracts. The bill defines it to include any agreement, or even any gift or donation given in kind. Think about that: if a university received a historical donation of specialized lab equipment, a cultural artifact, or even a visiting scholar’s stipend from one of these entities in the past, that could count as a relationship that triggers the funding ban. This broad definition makes compliance tricky for universities, as they have to audit every historical tie, no matter how small.

The Real-World Cost of Compliance

For a university, losing access to DHS funding is a massive financial hit. This isn’t just about the big grants for border security research; DHS funds critical programs like cybersecurity centers, emergency management training, and even scholarships for students studying fields like homeland security or counter-terrorism.

Imagine a grad student relying on a DHS grant to fund their thesis on critical infrastructure protection, or a university running a popular program training first responders. If that university has a historical, perhaps minor, relationship with a Chinese entity of concern—say, a donation of books to the library 10 years ago—the entire institution could lose all that DHS support. The student loses their funding, the program loses its budget, and the university faces a tough choice: sever potentially beneficial academic ties or lose significant federal dollars.

The Trade-Off: Security vs. Academic Freedom

The intent here is clearly national security: preventing foreign influence or espionage in institutions that receive sensitive federal funding. By imposing a total funding cutoff, the bill creates a powerful incentive for universities to review and sever ties with organizations the federal government views as security risks.

However, the scope is so wide that it could force universities to ditch legitimate, low-risk academic partnerships just to keep the lights on and the grants flowing. This pressure could chill international academic exchange, making universities wary of any engagement with Chinese institutions, regardless of their actual threat level. The Secretary of Homeland Security essentially becomes the final arbiter of what international academic relationships are acceptable, backed by the severe financial penalty of a total funding cutoff.