Pentagon expands control over universities and threatens academic freedom in US

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Washington has ordered urgent audits of more than 30 universities in the United States, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, to examine academic and financial ties with China, Russia, and other countries. The move expands the use of “national security” and heightens tensions at a time when the US already faces talent loss and challenges to its scientific leadership, particularly from China.

The Pentagon has notified the country’s leading academic and research institutions that there will be comprehensive audits of their academic, financial, and scientific partnerships with China, Russia, Iran, and other countries. With just two weeks to respond, noncompliance could result in the loss of future federal research funding.

“The Department of War has zero tolerance for academic partnerships that compromise our national security,” said Emil Michael, Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering. “Institutions that receive funding from American taxpayers must uphold the highest standards of research security, and these mandated audits will ensure accountability across the board.”

According to a US official, the universities subject to the audit include, among others, Duke University, MIT, Georgetown University, the University of California, and the University of Texas.

The Pentagon warned that the research institutions must also implement plans to mitigate actions that violate national security protocols and, if necessary, terminate “problematic partnerships.”

“Universities are critical partners in executing a wide range of Department of War research programs, and the Department must therefore ensure that our research investments are well protected from foreign exploitation,” said Dr. Joseph Jewell, Assistant Secretary of War for Science and Technology.

A report released this month by the US House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Education and Workforce Committee found that Harvard University did not adequately protect research collaborations with Chinese institutions, noting that researchers at the American university co-authored more than 140 publications with researchers at Chinese universities. This report followed a Reuters article published in July that claimed China has used outputs from American AI models to train its defense capabilities.

In response to the Pentagon’s initiative, the Chinese state-owned Global Times said the audit shows how Washington has broadened the use of the concept of “national security,” which once applied only to sensitive sectors but now extends to routine academic relations. By treating scientific exchange as a matter of surveillance, “Washington is effectively putting academic freedom and scientific exchange under security lockdown.”

This move comes at a time when the US already faces intense global competition in artificial intelligence and growing difficulty in attracting and retaining talent.

“Rather than strengthening a ‘robust’ US scientific and research ecosystem, it risks further weakening it - and could ultimately become the real deadline for America’s scientific and technological edge,” Global Times stressed, adding that the North American country will become less attractive to foreign researchers and reduce the vitality of its innovation centers.

The discussion gained momentum after Moonshot AI launched Kimi K3 and amid the debate over Yang Zhilin’s departure from the US — one of the promising names among the new generation of Chinese AI researchers.

A survey conducted by the STAT and MassINC Polling Group found that 14% of biomedical scientists and postdoctoral researchers had been forced to turn down offers to work in their labs due to “changes in immigration policies,” while 13% had moved to other countries as a result of changes in US research funding. These figures reinforce the perception that the American environment has become less welcoming to international talent.

The Pentagon’s claims of “technology transfer” and “intellectual property theft” reflect US “anxiety over its declining talent appeal” and “weakening position in technological competition,” Global Times noted. By erecting barriers to protect its leadership, Washington risks driving away the very flows of “the talent, ideas and cooperation that sustain innovation.”

“That is the paradox: The more Washington tries to secure its technological edge through isolation, the more it risks undermining its competitiveness,” the outlet added.

“If Washington continues to treat normal academic cooperation as a national security risk, the countdown it should truly worry about may be for America’s own scientific and innovation edge,” Global Times concluded.

China criticizes the politicization of national security, promotes greater scientific openness, and aims to accelerate its development as a global innovation hub by attracting international talent, bolstering world-class universities, and investing in frontier fields. This strategy is the opposite of American isolationism and involves deeper integration with the global scientific community.

With the world’s largest industrial system, a vast market, diverse applications, and close collaboration among academia, industry, and capital, China, unlike the US, considers these factors strategic advantages and will continue advancing research both independently and with partners.