Skip to content

The True Face of the Confucius Institute

On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Concerns Over Nations Funding University Campus Institutes in the United States Act (the Confucius Act). The bill increases the oversight over Confucius Institutes and will cut federal funds to universities and colleges that don’t comply with the new oversight rules.

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who introduced the legislation stated, “Confucius Institutes are under the control of the Chinese Communist Party in all but name.” “This bill would give colleges and universities full control over their resident Confucius Institutes and restore freedom of thought on their campuses.” {1}

I. What Are Confucius Institutes?

Confucius Institutes (CIs) are Chinese government-sponsored organizations that offer classes on Chinese language and culture on college or university campuses or in K1-12 classrooms worldwide. The Confucius Institute derived its name from the renowned Chinese educator and philosopher Confucius, who lived about 2000 years ago from 551 BCE to 479 BCE. Although the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) condemned Confucius as a relic of the country’s feudal past and as an obstacle to the Party’s vision of social transformation during its Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976), in the past few decades, it has revived Confucius’ name in its official propaganda. The Institute aims, ostensibly, to meet the demands of foreign Chinese learners, contribute to the development of multiculturalism, and build a harmonious a national icon of China’s traditional culture, as well as a symbol of the CCP’s concern for public welfare.

The first CI opened in 2004 in Seoul, South Korea. As of the end of 2018, the CCP had established at least 548 CIs (targeting colleges and universities) and 1,193 Confucius classrooms (targeting elementary and secondary schools) in 154 countries. Among those CIs, 12 were in Canada, 29 in the United Kingdom, and 106 in the United States. {2} {3} The U.S. has more CIs than any other country. As of January 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office data showed about 110 CIs located in 44 of the 50 states. {4}

II. Why Are People Concerned about Confucius Institutes?

A. CIs are a part of the CCP’s United Front Work. They are designed to infiltrate the United States

CIs are under Hanban, the colloquial abbreviation for the Office of Chinese Language Council International. According to its website: “Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters, is a public institution affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE). The Institute is committed to providing Chinese language and cultural teaching resources and services worldwide.” It claims that CIs are, “The non-profit public institution which aims to promote Chinese language and culture in foreign countries.” {5}

Of course, the CIs are not simple non-profit organizations devoted to promoting a harmonious multicultural world. CIs are actually affiliated with the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD). The UFWD is a CCP agency that is dedicated to gathering intelligence on, managing relations with, and attempting to influence elite individuals and organizations inside and outside China in order to advance the CCP’s goals. The CI was launched in 2004. It was under the head of the UFWD, Liu Yandong, the former Chinese vice premier and Politburo member. {6} Liu served as the chair of the Hanban Confucius Institute Headquarters until 2020.

The communist United Front work is inspired by the Leninist theory of uniting with lesser enemies to defeat greater ones. The important goal of the CCP’s United Front work is to “unite all forces that can be united” to thwart the “enemy forces abroad.” {7} The U.S. State Department has described the United Front Work Department (UFWD) as “an organ tasked with co-opting and neutralizing threats to the party’s rule and to its spreading its influence and propaganda overseas.” {8} The UFWD of the CCP directs many United Front activities to indoctrinate people with the CCP’s ideologies or to promote the CCP’s positive image. As the former head of the CCP, Hu Jintao has stated, “Establishing and spreading the Chinese language institutes such as the Confucius Institutes around the world is to increase our [Chinese Communist] Party’s influence worldwide” {9}

B. CIs are under the direct control of the CCP in order to achieve subnational infiltration into American education

Hanban’s website states that CIs were established to follow the footsteps of the U.K.’s British Council, France’s Alliance Française, Germany’s Goethe Institute, and Spain’s Cervantes Institute. {10} The above institutes are all operated independently or semi-independently without a direct operating relationship with any university or institute. Their government does not directly manage these institutes, while the CIs are totally different. The CIs are directly under the guidance and control of the CCP to implement its aims. The CI’s teachers’ hiring, their payment, the CI’s operating agreement and its contracts are all under the CCP’s control.

The 2019 U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation report, “China’s Impact on the U.S. Education System,” stated, “The Chinese government controls nearly every aspect of the Confucius Institutes in U.S. schools. The Confucius Institutes report to the Chinese government’s Ministry of Education Office of Chinese Language Council International, known as “Hanban.” Confucius Institutes are funded, controlled, and mostly staffed by Hanban to present Chinese government approved programming to students at U.S. schools. Hanban approves each Confucius Institutes’ annual budget and has veto authority over events and speakers.” {11}

The March 2021 Campus Reform report found that the contracts signed by universities with the Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters let the CCP decide and control what to teach at CIs. {12} For example, Texas Southern University’s 2012 contract stated that the university “must accept the assessment of the [CI] Headquarters on the teaching quality.” The same wording also appeared in the CI contracts with six other universities, including the Central Connecticut State University, Baruch College, the University of Southern Maine, the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, The University of Toledo, and Binghamton University.

The contract/agreement for the CI at the Central Connecticut State University further stated that, “The University Institute shall review evaluations and recommendations made by the Confucius Institute Headquarters on the quality of the programs and make any necessary modifications.” The contracts and agreements for CIs at Georgia State University, Southern Utah University, and Binghamton University all had similar language. {13}

According to the National Association of Scholars (NSA) 2017 report, CI contracts include stipulations that all classes and personnel must “adhere to Chinese law.” {14}

Senators Portman (R: Ohio)& Carper’s(D: Ohio) eight-month long investigation found that it is the CCP that pays teachers to teach Chinese language and culture in Confucius Classrooms of K-12 grade schools. There are more than 500 Confucius Classrooms in the U.S. Hanban operates the Cis, provides teachers, and institutes directors, operating funds, textbooks, and classroom materials. Chinese directors and teachers at all CIs have to pledge to protect China’s national interests. {15}

Ted Foss, the Deputy Director of the Center for East Asian Studies (CEAS) at the University of Chicago, revealed that the CCP assigned a deputy director from Renmin University to the University of Chicago without giving him any teaching or specific duties. It seemed he was serving as Hanban’s eyes. Foss felt, “At every level — from the Politburo authority over the Hanban headquarters to the deputy director from Renmin reporting on the Chicago C.I., with its echo of the (Chinese communist) party official monitoring a Chinese university department…”  and that the Chicago CI is subject to surveillance and control by the party (the CCP). {16}

By embedding itself in U.S. college campuses and academic institutes, the CI program allowed the CCP directly to spread its own version of human rights and its own verion of Chinese history.  As Liu Yunshan (a CCP Politburo member and head of the CCP Central Propaganda Department from 2002 to 2017) stated in a 2010 Party Building article, “With regard to key issues that influence our sovereignty and safety we should actively carry out international propaganda battles against issuers such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, human rights, and Falun Gong. … We should do well in establishing and operating overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes.” {17}

CIs subvert important academic principles of autonomy and freedom of inquiry, aim to promote the CCP’s version of historical events, distort the history of China, and make no mention of the CCP’s appalling human rights record. In some CI classrooms, quotes from Mao Zedong are hung on the wall. On the surface, CIs claim to teach Chinese culture, while, in fact, they promote communist doctrine and transmit the CCP’s culture. Certain topics about China are banned in Cis, such as Tibetan independence, the status of Taiwan, the Tiananmen massacre, Falun Gong, and universal human rights. To be consistent with the “cultural activities” of CIs, the presentation must present a positive picture of a peaceful, harmonious, and attractive People’s Republic of China.  {18}

In 2009, the CI of North Carolina State University used its influence to stop a scheduled visit of the Dalai Lama to the university. In April 2013, the CI of Sydney University actively attempted to prevent the Dalai Lama from coming to speak in June. {19} On July 22, 2014, Xu Lin, then Director General of Hanban ordered several pages to be removed from the conference program at the 20th Exchange of the European Association for Chinese Studies (EACS) in Portugal. Those pages included an advertisement for the Taiwan-based Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholars. Xu claimed that “there were some abstracts whose contents were contrary to Chinese regulations.” Roger Greatrex, the President of EACS and Director of the Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, protested Xu’s bullying action. According to Greatrex, Taiwan’s Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation has a long history of sponsoring the conference and has never interfered with conference proceedings. Though it was the CI’s first year sponsoring the EACS conference, it already started “owning and directing” the conference program. {20}

The CIs not only censor certain topics in teaching, but also distort the history of the CCP in their teaching. A video and a chapter in an advanced history text for Confucius Classrooms on “The War to Resist U.S. Aggression in Korea,” claimed that China entered the Korean war (to defend itself) in response to the U.S.’ bombing Chinese villages across the border. The video was originally in the children’s section of the Hanban website. It was taken down in 2012 after Professor Christopher Hughes of the London School of Economics shared a link with colleagues about CI teaching materials. Professor Jane Teufel Dreyer, who teaches Chinese government and foreign policy at the University of Miami, wrote. after studying several such videos and the related events, “They are outrageous distortions of what actually happened.” {21}

It is well documented that the CCP UFWD is using the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries to reinforce its subnational influence in the U.S. It does this through the China-US Governors Forum, the China-US Sub-National Legislatures Cooperation Forum, the Sister Cities program and many other programs. {22} The CI is also an integral part of the CCP’s subnational invasion into the American education system.

Although the CI is often referred as a cultural and linguistic program similar to the Alliance Française for French, the Goethe-Institute for German, the Instituto Cervantes for Spanish, and the British Council for English in the U.S., those institutes are independent of American colleges and universities while the CIs are not. The CIs operate within established universities, institutions, and schools around the world, providing operating funding, teachers, and educational materials. The de facto existence of the CCP is no longer as an outsider, but an insider which is now part of the host university.

Although many legislators or congressional members’ concern led to some closure of CIs in the U.S., there is no legal or regulatory obligation for American universities to report their CI partnerships, activities, or operating contracts. So American universities can solely decide whether or not to establish CIs and financial relationships. This lack of oversight, plus CIs’ being embedded in American universities and schools, gives the CCP perfect opportunities to spread its subnational influence freely.

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 requires nearly all colleges and universities to submit bi-annual reports on foreign gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more (alone or in combination with other foreign gifts or contracts). {23} Yet almost no college or university has followed the law. Senators Portman & Carper’s investigation found that, “Since 2006, the Chinese government has provided more than $158 million to more than 100 U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes.” “U.S. schools have failed to comply with statutory requirements to report foreign gifts to the Department of Education. Nearly 70 percent of U.S. schools with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year for Confucius Institutes failed to report that information properly to the Department of Education.” {24}

For example, Renmin University of China and Columbia University started an academic partnership in 2008. Hanban started planning for establishing a CI at Columbia in 2008. In 2010, Hanban pledged Columbia to distribute $1 million to the institute over five years to fund its research projects and Chinese culture events. {25} Columbia University has never disclosed that $1 million donation or any other CI related funding in public disclosures. With this big donation, Professor Wei Deming from Renmin University was assigned to be the head of CI. Wei also serves as a special adviser to the religious-affairs division of the CCP’s UFWD. {26}

C. The CCP is using CIs to support its military industrial complex research

In December 2021 an investigative report by Craig Singleton of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) {27} revealed a chilling fact that the CCP is using CIs as platforms to benefit its military-civil fusion to achieve its military ambitions. The FDD report showed that Arizona State University, the University of Utah, and Pacific Lutheran University in Washington state, all had and/or still have CI partnerships with their sister university-Sichuan University, which was put on a U.S. trade blacklist in 2019 for supporting the CCP’s nuclear weapons program.

The Commerce Department’s entity list identifies Sichuan University as an “alias” for the China Academy of Engineering Physics, a Chinese center overseeing nuclear weapons research. This research center, having been on the Entity List since the early 2000s, was identified as equivalent to Los Alamos, the US nuclear facility in New Mexico. {28}

One of the operating models of the CI is to form a CI relationship involving three parties: the American university, the CCP, and a Chinese sister university selected by the CCP to support the CI’s programming. Most, if not all, of the CCP chosen Chinese sister universities provide direct, documented support to China’s military-industrial complex.

The CCP is selective when picking its hosting universities.  Most of the U.S. universities, where the CCP established CIs, are R1 or R2 research universities. According to Carnegie Classification, R1, doctoral universities, are considered the most organizationally complex and prestigious, with very high research activity; R2, next-tier research universities have high research activity. These American R1 and R2 research universities are often the direct recipients of National Industrial Security Program-related funding to perform classified research or other work for the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Appendix II of the FDD report listed 55 R1 Research Institutes and 16 R2 Research Institutes currently hosted a CI or costed one between 2018 and 2021.

It seems that the CCP purposefully established CIs in these American R1 and R2 research universities in order to acquire or gain access to more sensitive research in these universities so it could benefit its military research. Many of these American R1 and R2 research universities still maintain or rebrand partnerships with their Chinese sister universities even after the closure of CIs. Isn’t the U.S. unknowingly aiding its enemy’s military build-up?

III. What Is the Current Status of CIs?

A. Many CIs have been closed

McMaster University in Canada is one of the earliest universities that stopped its CI. It didn’t renew its CI contract in July 2013 after Hanban’s discrimination on religious belief was revealed by a CI teacher who practiced Falun Gong. Sonia Zhao, a Chinese teacher who practices Falun Gong, a Buddhist spiritual movement, was employed by Hanban and sent to the CI at McMaster University in Canada. According to Zhao, “We also had to sign a contract. In the contract it says that ‘we can’t be Falun Gong practitioners’ … This contract takes effect in all Confucius Institutes in all countries. This contract shows discrimination against teachers’ personal beliefs, and this is how they have violated freedom of belief worldwide.” McMaster University terminated its relationship with Hanban by stating, “We have a very clear direction on building an inclusive community, respect for diversity, respect for individual views, and the ability to speak about those.” {29}

After McMaster University closed its CI in 2013. In April of 2014, 108 faculty members of the University of Chicago signed a petition to ask the Council of the Faculty Senate to discontinue the CI at the University of Chicago. The petition used the McMaster University case as an example of how the CI can limit freedom of speech, and also pointed out that the CI is subjected to and must abide by Chinese law, and hence the University’s academic program is under CCP constraints. The university closed its CI in September of 2014, after running it for 5 years. It stated, “recently published comments about the University of Chicago in an article about the director-general (Xu Lin) of Hanban are incompatible with a continued equal partnership.” {30}

Rachelle Peterson, policy director of the National Association of Scholars, who focused on many issues about CIs, detailed the closure of CIs in 24 universities from 2014 to 2019. {31} For example, Penn State University’s decision to close its CI in September 2014 came within a week of the University of Chicago’s CI closure. Many legislators or congressional members helped the closure of many CIs after they clearly understood the CCP’s real goals for operating CIs in the U.S.

On February 5, 2018, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote a letter to urge Miami Dade College, the University of North Florida, the University of South Florida, the University of West Florida, and Cypress Bay High to terminate their agreements with CIs. Rubio stated, “There is mounting concern about the Chinese government’s increasingly aggressive attempts to use ‘Confucius Institutes’ and other means to influence foreign academic institutions and critical analysis of China’s past history and present policies.” “Given China’s aggressive campaign to ‘infiltrate’ American classrooms, stifle free inquiry, and subvert free expression both at home and abroad, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement.” {32} After Senator Rubio sent his letter in February 2018, almost immediately, the University of West Florida closed its CI. The University of North Florida closed its CI in August 2018. The University of South Florida closed its CI in December 2018.

Representative Martin Daniel’s (R Tenn) similar letter of urging {33} led to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville to close its CI in the spring of 2019. The University of Massachusetts in Boston shut its CI in January 2019 in response to Representative Seth Moulton’s March 2018 letters to 40 universities and colleges in Massachusetts, in which he urged them to resist the Chinese government’s efforts to establish institutes on their campuses. {34} Representative McCaul and Cuellar’s bipartisan concern letter led to an immediate closure of CIs at Texas A&M University and Prairie View A&M University in 2018. {35} The University of Minnesota terminated its CI in 2019 after State Senator Jim Abeler, along with 40 other Minnesota state legislators, expressed their concerns about CIs. {36}

In August 2020, the Trump Administration designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center (CIUS), whose mission is to oversee Confucius Institutes in the U.S., as a “foreign mission” of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The designation requires CIUS to regularly file information about its operations with the Department of State. CIUS is a PRC-funded, self-claimed 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity based in Washington, DC. {37} Its website,, is now under suspension.

The U.S. 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) condemned the CCP’s attempts to influence U.S. public opinion, especially “the media, cultural institutions, businesses, and academic and political groups.” A provision in the NDAA for FY2019 (P.L. 115-232, Section 1091) prohibits the use of DOD funds for Chinese language instruction provided by a CI or to support a Chinese language program at an institution of higher education that hosts a CI. {38}

The DOD funding provision, along with the urging of State Senator Abeler, convinced the University of Minnesota to close its CI in February 2019. Indiana University-Purdue University also closed its CI in April 2019 to avoid losing funding from the DOD.

According to 2021 FDD report, from 2018 to 2021, the number of CIs operating in the U.S. dropped from 113 to 34. Among those 79 colleges that closed their CIs, up to 20 percent did so to avoid potential loss of federal funding due to the 2019 NDAA provision. {39}

Sweden is the first European country that closed all of its CIs. Sweden closed all four CIs in December of 2019. It suspended its last Confucius classroom in the southern Swedish town of Falkenberg, in April 2020. {40}

B. CIs are still in operation but under new names

The number of actively operated CIs decreased substantially in the U.S. in recent years. However, CIs are not going away but evolving into a new phase of existence. In July 2020, the CCP quietly rebranded Confucius Institute headquarters, Hanban, to a new name. It is now called The Center for Language Education and Cooperation. It also transferred the operation of the CIs under the Ministry of Education to a non-governmental organization (NGO) called the Chinese International Education Foundation. The purpose was to “disperse the Western misinterpretation that the organization served as China’s ideological marketing machine.” {41}

At the same time, American schools also “cooperated” well with the CCP’s plan. For example, the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) announced the closure of its CI in early July 2021, ending its CI that had been established in 2007. Yet, UCA chose to maintain a relationship with its former CI sister university-the East China Normal University (ECNU). East China Normal University conducts joint research projects related to the People’s Liberation Army of the CCP. {42}

The University of Tennessee in Knoxville, an R1 research university, closed its CI in the spring of 2019 but maintains its partnership with Southeast University in China and launched its own global programming in Asia. {43} Tufts University, another R1 university, closed its CI in September 2021, but after the CI closure, it focused on expanding and deepening its relationship with its CI hosting Chinese sister university-Beijing Normal University. {44} Portland State University, an R2 university, ended its CI in January 2021, yet it started to “offer a variety of other programs and resources, including what will hopefully be renewed and expanded to direct academic ties with the faculty, students and staff at Soochow University in China.” {45} The College of William and Mary, also an R2 university, closed its 10-year-old CI with Beijing Normal University (BNU) on June 30, 2021. It launched its new W&M-BNU Collaborative Partnership on July 1, 2021. According to its website, “All activities agreed upon by W&M and BNU, or with other W&M Chinese partner universities, will be organized directly between the universities involved.” {46}

Other universities rebranded CIs after closing their CIs. For example, San Diego State University (SDSU) closed its CI in the early summer of 2019 due to the 2019 NDAA provision. By August of 2019, SDSU had already launched a new Chinese Cultural Center with similar programs under its former CI Director Li-Rong Lilly Cheng. {47} The closed CI from SDSU was transferred to San Diego Global Knowledge University with a new name: The San Diego Confucius Institute (SDCI). Its website stated that SDCI is administered by San Diego Global Educational Institute (SDGEI), which is a California non-profit public benefit corporation. {48}

The Asia Society, a New York-based nonprofit organization founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1956, was originally established to develop cultural exchanges between the U.S. and Asian countries. The Asia Society worked directly with Hanban to open more than 100 Confucius Classrooms in elementary, middle, and high schools in the U.S. after it started its first programs in 2010. {49}

After the CCP rebranded Hanban’s name as “the Center for Language Education and Cooperation” in June 2020, the Asia Society soon renamed its Confucius Classrooms in September 2020 as “the Asia Society Chinese Language Partner Network.” In November 2020, the Asia Society had already signed a new partnership with the newly formed the Center for Language Education and Cooperation.” On the surface, it appeared that Asia Society replaced Confucius Classrooms with the Chinese Language Partner Network, yet, according to its website, all the new classrooms will operate and teach the same materials at the same schools . {50}

Although actively operated CIs dropped from 113 to 34 between 2018 to 2021, those closed CIs are still in operation in the U.S. They just use a different format. The CCP is still in full swing continuing to brainwash American K-12 students and infiltrating the U.S. education system. As Rachelle Peterson pointed out, “The United States is headed toward a post-Confucius Institute world. The Chinese Communist Party knows that and is prepared. The Chinese government’s influence is appearing under new names, in new guises.” {51} and with a new facade. How about Americans. Do they know? If not, how long will it take for them to see it?


1. CNBC, “Senate approves bill to tighten controls on China-funded Confucius Institutes on U.S. university campuses,” March 5, 2021.
Xinhua, “Confucius Institutes a boost to cultural exchanges,” December 5, 2018.
3. Statista, “Number of Confucius Institutes in Europe as of December 2018, by country,” September 15, 2021.
4. U.S. Senate’s website, “China’s Impact on The U.S. Education System.”’s%20Impact%20on%20the%20US%20Education%20System.pdf.
5. Georgia State University website, “Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters,” October 21, 2016.
6. China Vitae, “Liu Yandong.” Yandong/career.
7. Rollins College, “China’s Propaganda System: Institutions, Processes and Efficacy.”
8. U.S. Senate’s website, “Designation of the National Association for China’s Peaceful Unification (NACPU) as a Foreign Mission of the PRC,” October 28, 2020.
9., “Confucius Institute.”
10. International Educational Exchange Information Program, “About Confucius Institutes & Hanban,” November 6, 2016.
11. U.S. Senate’s website, “China Impact on the U.S. Education System.”’s%20Impact%20on%20the%20US%20Education%20System.pdf.
12. Campus Reform, “EXCLUSIVE: Contracts reveal US universities ‘must’ accept CCP’s ‘assessment’ on ‘teaching quality’ at Confucius.”
13. Ibid.
14. National Association of Scholars, “Outsourced to China.”
15. Senator Portman’s website, “Senators Portman & Carper Unveil Bipartisan Report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities & K-12 Classrooms.”
16. United for Peace of Pierce County website, “BACKGROUND & COMMENTARY: China’s ‘Confucius Institutes’ are antithetical to university values.” December 15, 2013.
17. Way Back Machine, “Liu Yunshan: Liberate Thinking, Innovate, and Make Progresses,” May 25, 2012.
18. Rollins College, “China’s Propaganda System: Institutions, Processes and Efficacy.”
19. Bloomberg, “China Says No Talking Tibet as Confucius Funds U.S. Universities,” November 1, 2011.
20. Inside Higher Ed, “Censorship at China Studies Meeting,” August 6, 2014.
21. The Asia-Pacific Journal, “Confucius Institutes: Academic Malware,” Volume 12, Issue 46, November 16, 2014.
22. Politico, “All Over the Map: The Chinese Communist Party’s Subnational Interests in the United States,” November 2021.
23. U.S. Department of Education website, “Institutional Compliance with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.” October 2020.
U.S. Senate’s website, “Senators Portman & Carper Unveil Bipartisan Report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities & K-12 Classrooms,” February 27, 2019.
25. China Daily, “Columbia opens Confucius Institute,” April 10, 2013.
26. The Washington Free Beacon, “Columbia Failed to Disclose $1 Million in CCP Funding,” December 7, 2020.
27. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “The Middle Kingdom Meets Higher Education,” December 9, 2021.
28. University World News, “US export controls raise research collaboration concerns,” June 25, 2019.
29. Union of Catholic Asian News, “Propaganda in the name of Confucius,” April 26, 2019.
30. The Chicago Maroon, “University to end partnership with Confucius Institute,” September 30, 2014.
31. National Association of Scholars website, “Confucius Institutes in the US that Are Closing,” June 2019.
32. Senator Rubio’s website, “Rubio Warns of Beijing’s Growing Influence, Urges Florida Schools to Terminate Confucius Institute Agreements,” February 5, 2018.
33. Tennessean, “Tennessee lawmaker takes issue with Confucius Institute and ties to Chinese government,” February 22, 2017.
34. Daily Collegian, “UMass Boston under pressure to cut ties with Chinese learning institute accused of censorship and propaganda,” March 22, 2018.
35. Representative Michael Mccaul’s website, “McCaul, Cuellar Send Letter to Texas Universities Hosting Confucius Institutes,” April 5, 2018.
36. The Epoch Times, “Minnesota Legislators Oppose Confucius Institutes,” July 8, 2018.
37. U.S. Congress website, “Confucius Institutes in the United States: Selected Issues,” May 20, 2022.
38. US Congress website, “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,” HR 5515.
39. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “The Middle Kingdom Meets Higher Education,” December 9, 2021.
40. Phayul, “Sweden shuts down its last Confucius classroom amid deteriorating relations,” April 28, 2020.
41. Global Times, “New NGO to operate China’s Confucius Institutes, ‘disperse misinterpretation,” July 5, 2020.
42. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Universities Maintain Ties to Malign Chinese Entities Following Confucius Institute Closures,” August 2, 2021.
43. The University of Tennessee at Knoxville, “UT Transitions Strategic Focus for its Global Engagement in Asia,” January 24, 2019.
44. Tufts University, “Decision to Close the Confucius Institute at Tufts University,” March 17, 2021.
45. Portland State University, “Confucius Institute at Portland State University,” January 28, 2021.
46. William and Mary college, “Confucius Institute Closure.”
47. The Daily Aztec, “SDSU launches new Chinese Cultural Center as Confucius Institute closes,” August 21, 2019.
48. San Diego Confucius Institute, “Education. Culture. Harmony.”
49. China Owns Us, “China’s Global Supply Chain: How Chinese Communism Threatens American Interests.”
50. Asia Society, “Update on Asia Society’s Chinese Language Program,” January 13, 2022.
51. National Association of Scholars, “China’s Confucius Institutes Might Be Closing, But They Succeeded,” March 31, 2021.