Fortune54%

Harvard took hundreds of millions from Chinese donors—now the DOJ is asking if Americans were left out on purpose 63%

By Collin Binkley42% Nick Lichtenberg61% Didi Tang75% The Associated Press66%

7/21/2026, 12:21:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.6% saturation with 289 hits. Analysis detected 1,741 faulty-reasoning hits from 729 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.6% and a BS Rank of 63% (7,367 of 19,908 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.00% of the article peer group.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Harvard University is allowing Chinese donors to create scholarships that exclude American students, adding to the barrage of federal inquiries the Trump administration has opened in its battle against the Ivy League school. 
Justice Department officials announced the new review Monday, saying Harvard’s foreign funding disclosures “raised concerns” about possible discrimination against U.S. students. 
The agency did not specify which scholarship programs are being targeted and emphasized it “has not reached any conclusions.” 
The investigation is aimed at Harvard’s “China-based financial aid programs,” the Justice Department said. 
The agency said Chinese donors have given money to Harvard to support financial aid programs limited to students from certain countries. 
That restriction could amount to illegal discrimination based on country of origin, the department said. 
“Schools cannot take federal dollars and then turn around and accept money from foreign sources to give financial aid that deliberately excludes American citizens  doing so is illegal, and we will stop it wherever we find it,” said Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division. 
Harvard said it was reviewing the Justice Department notice. 
“Harvard follows the law for required reporting of donations and, consistent with our legal obligations under Title VI, does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin in allocating financial aid,” the university said in a written statement. 
In a statement, Liu Chang, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said China-U.S. education cooperation is mutually beneficial. 
“China maintains that normal education and academic exchange should not be disrupted for political purposes,” Liu said. 
Like many U.S. universities, Harvard accepts foreign funding through direct donations or contracts. 
The Trump administration has pushed for greater transparency around outside money , warning that accepting funding from foreign adversaries is a national security risk. 
Federal disclosures from Harvard show it has accepted $630 million from Chinese sources over a period of decades. 
Overall, it has reported about $4.5 billion in foreign funding. 
The Justice Department cited those figures but did not single out any donors or programs being reviewed. 
The investigation is a compliance review, meaning it’s initiated by the federal government rather than responding to an outside complaint. 
Unlike the vast majority of U.S. universities, Harvard and a small number of other schools provide need-based scholarships to international students on the same basis as U.S. students. 
Grants and other aid from the federal government are reserved for American students, but Harvard “has its own job and scholarship money available to foreign students,” according to a Harvard financial aid website. 
In some cases, foreign donors have given money to be used for international students. 
In 2014, Pan Shiyi and Zhang Xin, a Chinese couple that co-founded the real estate company SOHO China, donated $15 million to Harvard to provide financial aid for Chinese students. 
Their gift drew blowback from critics in China who said it was a betrayal to give money to foreign schools instead of Chinese universities. 
The Justice Department’s announcement makes the unusual legal argument that steering private funding to students of certain countries amounts to a civil rights violation for U.S. students. 
“Harvard appears to be accepting these funds and, in adherence to their restrictions, providing student financial aid to foreign students, presumably Chinese, based on their national origin  to the potential detriment of students of other national origins, including American citizens,” the agency said. 
The Trump administration has repeatedly opened new federal investigations against Harvard in its battle to win obedience from the nation’s oldest university. 
Harvard has been a prime target in the administration’s push to end “wokeness” and fight alleged antisemitism in American higher education. 
A federal judge has blocked the White House from cutting billions of dollars in federal research funding from Harvard amid the feud. 
Even as the legal battle continues, the government has sought new lines of attack, seeking to limit Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students and U.S. military members, and launching investigations into the school’s admissions process. 
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. 
AP is solely responsible for all content. 
Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Confirmation Bias
10.6%
Anchoring Bias
3.8%
Availability Heuristic
8.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
6.7%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
15.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
1.8%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.7%
Pessimism Bias
3.7%
Negativity Bias
39.6%
Self-Serving Bias
6.7%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
5.6%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
20.7%
False Dilemma
2.7%
Slippery Slope
4.8%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
11%
Red Herring
5.3%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
3%
Begging the Question
11.5%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
10.3%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
1.8%
Anecdotal
3.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
11.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
3.8%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
4.5%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
2.9%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
24.8%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
5.9%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
3.3%

729 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.