Background on Foreign Gift Reporting Requirements

US colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance have long been subject to disclosure obligations for certain international funding under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This provision requires institutions to report any gift from or contract with a foreign source valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year, either alone or when combined with other transactions from the same source. The requirement aims to promote openness about potential foreign influence in American higher education while allowing institutions to maintain eligibility for federal student aid programs.

Enacted more than three decades ago, Section 117 remained lightly enforced for many years. Institutions historically submitted data through older systems, often in spreadsheet formats that limited public accessibility and analysis. Recent federal actions have sought to modernize these processes amid growing concerns over national security and foreign influence in research and campus activities.

Launch of the New Federal Tracking Portal

In early 2026, the US Department of Education introduced an upgraded online portal at foreignfundinghighered.gov designed to streamline reporting and enhance public access to Section 117 data. The platform went live in January following beta testing with select institutions and incorporates additional data fields for greater detail on transactions. Officials described the tool as providing unprecedented visibility into foreign funding flows, including breakdowns by country and institution.

The portal features searchable dashboards, visualizations of aggregate statistics, and options to view institution-level information. It also flags transactions involving entities designated as countries or parties of concern by federal agencies. Training materials and user guides accompany the launch to assist compliance officers at colleges and universities.

Key Data Released for 2025 Transactions

In February 2026, the Department released comprehensive figures covering 2025 activity. More than 8,300 individual transactions totaling over $5.2 billion were documented across reporting institutions. This brings the cumulative total reported since 1986 to $67.6 billion, with the majority disclosed in recent years.

Leading donor countries included Qatar with over $1.1 billion, the United Kingdom exceeding $633 million, China above $528 million, Switzerland over $451 million, Japan at more than $374 million, Germany surpassing $292 million, and Saudi Arabia above $285 million. These figures encompass both governmental and non-state sources.

Prominent recipient institutions featured Carnegie Mellon University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology each approaching $1 billion in reported foreign support, followed by Stanford University with over $775 million and Harvard University above $324 million. The data highlighted that a significant portion of funds concentrated among a small number of research-intensive universities.

Questions Arising from Dashboard Presentation

While the new site improves access compared to prior spreadsheet-only releases, observers have noted limitations in how the information is organized and displayed. One concern centers on the difficulty of tracking year-over-year trends, as the dashboard does not easily permit sorting or filtering disclosures by specific calendar years. This structure can make it challenging to identify shifts in funding patterns or spikes in activity from particular regions.

Policy experts have pointed out that aggregate totals without granular temporal context may present an incomplete picture. For instance, late-reported transactions exceeding $2 billion between February and December 2025 underscore compliance gaps, yet the visualization tools do not always highlight timeliness issues prominently. Higher education associations have emphasized the value of transparency while calling for refinements that preserve necessary context around gift purposes and institutional relationships.

Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

Executive Order and Heightened Federal Focus

President Trump signed an executive order in April 2025 titled Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities. The directive directed the Department of Education to strengthen enforcement of Section 117, rescind prior practices that allowed obscured sourcing details, and expand public access to disclosures. It also encouraged coordination with other agencies for audits and potential legal actions against noncompliant institutions.

The order built on earlier enforcement efforts, including investigations opened during the first Trump administration and renewed activity in the current term. Institutions must now provide more specific details on sources and intended uses of funds, with certifications of compliance becoming a point of discussion in regulatory updates.

Interagency Partnership with the State Department

In February 2026, the Department of Education formalized a partnership with the Department of State to bolster administration of Section 117. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs contributes expertise in reviewing disclosures for national security implications. This collaboration enables systematic analysis of reports by foreign affairs specialists, potentially increasing scrutiny of transactions involving sensitive countries or entities.

Officials stated the arrangement supports proactive identification of risks to research integrity and campus environments. Data from the portal now flows more readily to national security reviewers, complementing the Education Department's traditional oversight role.

Implications for University Compliance and Operations

University administrators face increased administrative burdens as reporting requirements expand and enforcement intensifies. Compliance teams must verify donor identities, track cumulative thresholds across multiple gifts, and ensure timely biannual submissions. Many institutions have invested in internal systems to capture data from affiliated foundations and research offices.

Stakeholders note that foreign funding often supports scholarships, research collaborations, and campus infrastructure. However, incomplete or delayed disclosures can trigger federal reviews, reputational concerns, and questions from donors about privacy. Professional associations have advocated for clearer regulatory guidance on definitions of gifts versus contracts and handling of conditional donations.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Transparency and Influence

Advocates for stronger oversight argue that enhanced public dashboards help safeguard academic freedom and prevent undue foreign sway over curricula or research priorities. They point to historical cases where undisclosed funding raised alarms about influence operations.

University leaders and higher education groups stress the importance of balanced approaches that encourage legitimate international partnerships without creating undue barriers. They highlight the role of foreign gifts in fostering global research networks and supporting diverse student populations. Concerns include potential chilling effects on donations if donor identities face broad public exposure beyond statutory needs.

Faculty members and researchers emphasize maintaining open scientific exchange while protecting sensitive technologies. Job seekers in higher education administration may encounter new expectations around compliance expertise when applying for roles overseeing sponsored programs or international affairs offices.

Photo by Sheikh Abir Ali on Unsplash

Challenges in Data Accuracy and Reporting Timeliness

Analysis of recent releases reveals ongoing issues with late filings, with billions in transactions reported after statutory deadlines. Institutions cite complexities in identifying foreign sources, especially when funds pass through intermediaries or multiple entities.

The absence of formal regulations implementing Section 117 leaves room for interpretation on reporting thresholds and affiliated entity obligations. Higher education organizations have submitted comments requesting additional sub-regulatory guidance to reduce ambiguity and administrative load.

Future Outlook for Foreign Funding Oversight

Continued upgrades to the portal and expanded interagency coordination suggest sustained federal attention to Section 117 compliance. Potential developments include further data elements, improved search functionalities, and integration with other transparency initiatives.

Universities are likely to prioritize robust internal controls, staff training, and proactive engagement with federal guidance. Broader discussions may address how transparency measures intersect with efforts to attract international talent and maintain competitive research environments.

For academics and administrators navigating these changes, resources on career development in sponsored research and compliance functions can provide valuable context on evolving institutional needs.