Fortune52%

Harvard took hundreds of millions from Chinese donors—now the DOJ is asking if Americans were left out on purpose 64%

By Collin Binkley45% Nick Lichtenberg62% Didi Tang76% The Associated Press65%

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 64% (7,548 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.20% 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 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Collin Binkley: 2.2%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 3.8%Collin Binkley: 0.6%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 8.1%Collin Binkley: 1.6%Fortune: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 6.7%Collin Binkley: 1.1%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 3.0%Fortune: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Collin Binkley: 11.3%Fortune: 6.8%Framing Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 1.2%Fortune: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Collin Binkley: 1.6%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Collin Binkley: 2.0%Fortune: 3.2%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 3.7%Collin Binkley: 2.4%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 39.6%Collin Binkley: 12.1%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias39.6%This article: 6.7%Collin Binkley: 1.3%Fortune: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.9%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 1.0%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Collin Binkley: 1.5%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.5%Fortune: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 1.3%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.5%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Collin Binkley: 4.7%Fortune: 4.9%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 2.7%Collin Binkley: 2.0%Fortune: 2.1%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 4.8%Collin Binkley: 1.1%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.0%Collin Binkley: 2.4%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 5.3%Collin Binkley: 0.4%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.3%Fortune: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.0%Collin Binkley: 4.5%Fortune: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 11.5%Collin Binkley: 1.4%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question11.5%This article: 10.3%Collin Binkley: 2.2%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.3%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.3%Collin Binkley: 0.8%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.3%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.8%Collin Binkley: 0.1%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division1.8%This article: 3.3%Collin Binkley: 1.3%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.5%Collin Binkley: 2.2%Fortune: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.5%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground3.8%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.2%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.5%Collin Binkley: 0.3%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading4.5%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Collin Binkley: 2.3%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 1.5%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 24.8%Collin Binkley: 6.2%Fortune: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice24.8%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 0.7%Fortune: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Collin Binkley: 1.3%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Collin Binkley: 0.7%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.9%This article: 3.3%Collin Binkley: 0.4%Fortune: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

729 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers47%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Department • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Department • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 15 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 48 words • 0.0% coverageHarvard • 9 words • 0.0% coverageHarvard • 42 words • 0.0% coverageLiu Chang • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLiu Chang • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageHarvard • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 7 words • 100.0% coverageAssociated Press • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Harmeet Dhillon

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words14% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.6 ptsWriter: 35.6%Harmeet Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Harmeet Dhillon: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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