WASHINGTON, October 25, 2026: The Pentagon’s designation of Confucius Institutes as a national security threat has renewed a dispute over Chinese linked university programmes as Washington and Beijing pursue trade and advanced AI arrangements while tightening scrutiny of research ties and academic governance.
In a post on X, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the Department of War had designated Confucius Institutes a national security threat. He alleged that 80 organisations had returned to 30 universities under different names and charters, accusing them of seeking to steal intellectual property and influence American students. His post did not identify the organisations individually.
The War Department has designated Confucius Institutes as a threat to our national security. https://t.co/bvMTUBwGei
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 23, 2026
Earlier reviews present a more varied record. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the number of Confucius Institutes at American universities fell from about 100 in 2019 to fewer than five by 2023. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found risks to academic freedom and university governance, but its committee said it was not aware of publicly known instances of attempted espionage associated with the institutes or publicly known evidence that their presence increased risks to Department of Defense funded research.
The designation follows a wider Pentagon review of university research relationships, a statutory restriction on defence funding for institutions hosting Confucius Institutes and renewed efforts by Washington and Beijing to manage disagreements over trade and advanced technology.
Pentagon expands scrutiny of university research ties
In mid August, the Department of War directed 30 American academic institutions to review their academic, financial and research relationships with foreign entities of concern. Its order included organisations associated with rebranded Confucius Institutes and cited risks involving unauthorised technology transfers, intellectual property theft and the security of publicly funded research.
A separate legal restriction concerns Department of Defense funding. Section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 bars such funding to universities hosting Confucius Institutes, subject to specified exceptions. The secretary’s authority to grant waivers ended on the first of this month, and existing waivers no longer apply. The provision addresses Department of Defense funds, rather than establishing a blanket statutory ban on every form of federal research funding.
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) criticised the university audit order in August. They warned that placing 30 institutions under suspicion and threatening research funding could damage academic freedom, open inquiry and international scientific cooperation. They also questioned the department’s authority to make access to all federal research funding conditional on compliance with its directive, rather than limiting the conditions to its own funding.
Earlier reviews found mixed results from Confucius Institutes
The GAO’s 2023 review found that the potential loss of federal funding was a major factor in universities’ decisions to close their Confucius Institutes. More than 60 per cent of the 74 survey respondents said the possibility of losing federal funding, or becoming ineligible for it, contributed to a great extent to their decision. The survey also found that 97 per cent of respondents reported ensuring that foreign staff had no decision making authority on campus, while 96 per cent said the American director was accountable to senior university officials. Many institutions reported reduced opportunities for Chinese language learning and China related cultural and academic programmes after closures.
The National Academies’ 2023 report on Confucius Institutes considered the risks associated with foreign government supported programmes alongside their educational role. It identified concerns involving academic freedom, freedom of expression and university governance. The committee said risks could be managed through institutional policies and controls, although they could not be eliminated entirely. Its findings were based on publicly available and unclassified information and did not establish that every institute was free of risk.
A separate study by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) examined 12 Confucius Institutes in New York and New Jersey. It raised concerns about confidential agreements between universities and Chinese partners, staffing arrangements and possible pressure on academics to avoid politically sensitive subjects. The study also mentioned differences among institutions, including accounts from some directors who said they had not felt pressure to avoid sensitive topics. Its findings came from a limited group of institutes rather than a nationwide review.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs defended Confucius Institutes in a statement in 2020, describing them as programmes established voluntarily by American universities to support Chinese language learning and cultural exchange. The ministry accused US politicians of politicising educational cooperation.
US security measures overlap with continuing China trade and AI talks
During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington in late September, the two governments announced arrangements to pursue reduced tariff treatment for selected goods and established a channel for dialogue on advanced artificial intelligence. These initiatives proceeded alongside American scrutiny of research relationships involving Chinese institutions.
The White House fact sheet described recommendations for more favourable tariff treatment covering $30 billion of goods in each direction. The working procedures for the US China Board of Trade state that the two sides will consider mutually agreed lists of goods, subject to their respective domestic laws and procedures. The framework sets out a process for considering tariff changes, rather than establishing that all proposed reductions have already been implemented.
The US China Business Council (USCBC), which represents American companies operating in China, welcomed the trade truce extension and the proposed tariff arrangements. It highlighted the importance of rare earth supplies to American supply chains and called for further progress on market access, non tariff barriers and government procurement. Its position reflected business interests in maintaining trade channels while addressing restrictions and supply risks.
China criticised the Pentagon
A September assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described the trade truce as fragile. It identified continuing disagreements over US restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports, existing tariffs and Chinese rare earth exports. The assessment also found that the summit had not produced substantive agreements on many of the advanced technology issues dividing Washington and Beijing, although the AI dialogue created a channel for further engagement.
Beijing criticises broader US research restrictions
China’s Ministry of Commerce criticised the Pentagon in a statement issued on Friday. Responding to the department’s announcement about university relationships with entities on its Section 1286 list, the ministry accused Washington of extending the concept of national security into research cooperation and politicising scientific exchanges. It said the restrictions could damage normal research cooperation and urged the United States to stop what it described as discriminatory measures against Chinese research institutions. The statement addressed the wider university audit, rather than directly responding to Hegseth’s Confucius Institutes designation.
Congressional pressure for tighter research security has also continued. In mid October, John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, called on the Pentagon to expand its list of institutions and programmes linked to China’s defence research and industrial base. His proposal covered universities, laboratories and talent recruitment programmes and formed part of the broader debate over research security, rather than a specific call for the Confucius Institutes designation.
The next planned US China AI exchange is expected in November, while the Pentagon’s research security measures and Beijing’s objections remain active parts of the relationship. The two governments are pursuing channels for trade and AI engagement while maintaining opposing positions over the risks and limits of cooperation with Chinese linked research institutions.
