The Pentagon’s decision to designate Chinese-funded Confucius Institutes as a national security threat has renewed scrutiny of Beijing’s influence in American higher education, particularly programs that allegedly continued operating under different names after their original institutions closed.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the designation on Oct. 23, accusing Chinese government-backed organizations of using cultural and educational partnerships to gain access to American universities.
According to Reuters, Hegseth identified “80 new propaganda cells across 30 universities” that he alleged had resurfaced under different names and organizational structures.
He accused the groups of attempting to steal intellectual property and influence American students, saying the Defense Department had “systematically dismantled every single one of these organizations” over the preceding two months.
The announcement follows years of federal restrictions and investigations into Confucius Institutes, raising questions about whether closing the original programs was sufficient to eliminate the influence concerns associated with their Chinese government funding.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
Confucius Institutes closed, but partnerships continued
Confucius Institutes began appearing on American university campuses in 2004, offering Mandarin instruction, cultural programming and educational exchanges through partnerships with Chinese institutions.
Although promoted as language and cultural centers, the programs attracted criticism over their financial dependence on Beijing and concerns that they could undermine academic freedom.
In August 2020, the U.S. State Department designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of the People’s Republic of China.
Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described the organization as an entity advancing Beijing’s “global propaganda and malign influence campaign” on American campuses.
Earlier congressional restrictions had already placed the institutes under financial pressure. A 2023 Government Accountability Office report found that their number had declined from approximately 100 in 2019 to fewer than five.
However, investigations suggested that some educational relationships survived the closures.
A 2022 National Association of Scholars report found that at least 28 American institutions had replaced their closed Confucius Institutes with similar programs, while 58 maintained close relationships with their former Chinese partner institutions.
The researchers concluded that “many once-defunct Confucius Institutes have since reappeared in other forms.”
The report also documented changes to the Chinese organizations overseeing the programs, including the restructuring of Hanban, the agency previously responsible for Confucius Institutes, and the creation of the Chinese International Education Foundation.
These findings provide historical context for the Pentagon’s latest allegations, although they do not independently establish that the 80 organizations described by Hegseth were engaged in espionage or other illegal activities.
Pentagon audits prompt university partnerships to end
The latest designation follows a broader Defense Department investigation into foreign academic partnerships.
On Aug. 17, the Pentagon ordered 30 American academic institutions to review their financial, research and educational relationships with foreign organizations identified as potential security risks.
The directive specifically included organizations associated with rebranded Confucius Institutes.
“The Department of War has zero tolerance for academic partnerships that compromise our national security,” said Emil Michael, undersecretary for research and engineering.
Joseph Jewell, assistant secretary for science and technology, emphasized the importance of protecting federally funded research.
“Universities are critical partners in executing a wide range of Department of War research programs,” he said, adding that research investments must be protected from foreign exploitation.
On Oct. 19, the Pentagon announced that all 30 institutions had addressed the relationships identified during the audits.
The department reported more than 80 actions involving the termination of foreign academic partnerships, including some with entities on a federal security-risk list and others ended as a precaution.
However, those figures do not establish that all 80 actions involved Confucius Institute successor organizations. The Pentagon’s earlier announcement covered a broader range of foreign partnerships.
Some universities also disputed suggestions that their relationships had exposed sensitive research.
A Washington Post investigation published Oct. 21 found that several institutions had identified partnerships involving student exchanges or nontechnical academic programs rather than restricted research.
Oklahoma State University, for example, reported that its agreements with China’s Fudan University did not expose sensitive or Defense Department-funded research. Nevertheless, the university decided to terminate the arrangements as a precaution.
The findings illustrate the difficulties universities face in balancing international academic cooperation against increasingly strict federal research-security requirements.
Beijing rejects designation
China rejected the Pentagon’s accusations on Oct. 26, defending Confucius Institutes as legitimate educational exchange programs.
“We reject vilification and smears against Confucius Institute,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said during a regular press briefing, according to the ministry’s official transcript.
Guo maintained that educational exchanges between China and the United States improve mutual understanding and benefit both countries.
“They are desired by both sides and benefit both sides and should not be held back or disrupted,” he said.
The dispute comes as Washington intensifies scrutiny of Chinese institutional relationships involving American research, intellectual property and federally funded universities.
While the Pentagon says its recent actions have eliminated the partnerships it identified as security concerns, publicly available announcements have not established how many were direct successors to Confucius Institutes or provided detailed evidence supporting Hegseth’s allegations against each organization.
For American universities, the distinction remains significant: Closing a Confucius Institute does not necessarily end its former academic partnerships, but maintaining Chinese educational relationships does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing.
Original article
Comments