Alaska’s Colleges at the Meltdown’s Edge—Just as the Arctic Heats Up

Alaska’s higher-ed story is a preview of the national “College Meltdown,” only starker. The University of Alaska (UA) system—Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast—has endured a decade of enrollment erosion and austerity politics, punctuated by a 2019 budget crisis that forced regents to declare financial exigency and consider consolidations. The immediate trigger was a proposed $130+ million state cut, later converted into a three-year reduction compact; the long tail is a weakened public research engine in the very state where climate change is moving fastest.

In 2025 the vise tightened again from Washington. UA’s president told regents that more than $50 million in grants had been frozen or canceled under the Trump administration, warning of staff cuts and program impacts if funds failed to materialize. Those freezes were part of a broader chill: federal agencies stepping back from research that even references climate change, just as the Arctic’s transformation accelerates.

This is not an abstract loss. Alaska is the frontline laboratory of global warming: thawing permafrost, vanishing sea ice, collapsing coastal bluffs. UA’s scientists have documented these trends in successive “Alaska’s Changing Environment” assessments; the 2024 update underscores rapid, measurable shifts across temperature, sea ice, wildfire, hydrology, and ecosystems. When the main public research institution loses people and projects, the United States loses the data and know-how it needs to respond.

Climate denial collides with national security

The contradiction at the heart of federal policy is glaring. On one hand, the Trump administration has proposed opening vast swaths of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to drilling and reversing environmental protections—signaling a bet on fossil expansion in a region already warming at double the global rate. On the other hand, the same administration is curtailing climate and Arctic science, even as military planners warn that the Arctic is becoming a contested theater. You can’t secure what you refuse to measure.

The security stakes are real. Russia has spent the past decade refurbishing Soviet-era bases, deploying ice-capable vessels, and leveraging energy projects along the Northern Sea Route (NSR). China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” power and partnered with Moscow on patrols and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains short on icebreakers and Arctic domain awareness—even as traffic through high-latitude passages grows more plausible in low-ice summers. Analysts project that a meaningful share of global shipping could shift north by mid-century, and recent reporting shows the region is already a strategic flashpoint.

That makes UA’s expertise more than a local asset; it’s a pillar of U.S. national security. The University of Alaska Fairbanks hosts the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) and degree pathways that fuse climate, emergency management, and security studies—exactly the interdisciplinary skill set defense, Coast Guard, and civil authorities will need as sea lanes open and storms, fires, and thaw-related failures multiply. Undercut these programs, and you undercut America’s ability to see, interpret, and act in the Arctic.

The costs of disinvestment

The 2019 state-level cuts did immediate damage—hiring freezes, program reviews, and fears of accreditation changes—but their larger effect was to signal instability to students, faculty, and funders. Austerity invites a spiral: as programs and personnel disappear, grant competitiveness slips; as labs lose continuity, agencies look elsewhere; as uncertainty grows, students choose out-of-state options. UA leadership has tried to reverse course—prioritizing enrollment, retention, and workforce alignment in recent budgets—but it’s difficult to rebuild a research reputation once the pipeline of projects and people is disrupted.

The 2025 federal freezes amplify that spiral by hitting precisely the projects that matter most: those with “climate” in the title. Researchers report program cancellations and re-scoped solicitations across agencies. That kind of ideological filter doesn’t just reduce funding—it distorts the evidence base that communities, tribal governments, and emergency planners depend on for everything from permafrost-safe housing to coastal relocation plans. It also weakens U.S. credibility in Arctic diplomacy at a time when the Arctic Council is strained and cooperation with Russia is largely stalled.

Why this matters beyond Alaska

Think of UA as America’s northern early-warning system. Its glaciologists, sea-ice modelers, fire scientists, and social scientists collect the longitudinal datasets that turn anecdotes into policy-relevant knowledge. Lose continuity, and you lose the ability to detect regime shifts—abrupt ecosystem changes, cascading infrastructure failures from thaw, new navigation windows that alter shipping economics and risk. Those changes feed directly into maritime safety, domain awareness, and the rules-of-the-road that will govern the NSR and other passages.

Meanwhile, federal moves to expand Arctic drilling create additional operational burdens for emergency response and environmental monitoring—burdens that fall on the same universities being told to do more with less. Opening the door to long-lived oil projects while throttling climate and environmental research is a recipe for higher spill risk, poorer oversight, and costlier disasters.

A pragmatic way forward

Three steps could stabilize UA and, by extension, America’s Arctic posture:

1. Firewall climate science from political interference. Agencies should fund Arctic research on merit, not language policing. Reinstating paused grants and re-issuing climate-related solicitations would immediately restore capacity in labs and field stations.

2. Treat UA as critical national infrastructure. Just as the U.S. is racing to modernize radar and add icebreakers, it should invest in Arctic science and workforce pipelines at UA—scholarships tied to Coast Guard and NOAA service, ship time for sea-ice and fisheries research, and support for Indigenous knowledge partnerships that improve on-the-ground resilience.

3. Align energy decisions with security reality. Every new Arctic extraction project increases environmental and emergency-response exposure in a region where capacity is thin. If policymakers proceed, they owe UA and Alaska communities the monitoring, baseline studies, and response investments that only a healthy public research university can sustain.

The paradox of the College Meltdown is that it hits hardest where public knowledge is most needed. In the Lower 48, that might mean fewer nurses or teachers. In Alaska, it means flying blind in a rapidly changing theater where Russia and China are already maneuvering and where coastlines, sea ice, and permafrost are literally moving under our feet. The University of Alaska is not a nice-to-have. It is how the United States knows what is happening in the Arctic—and how it prepares for what’s next. Weakening it in the name of budget discipline or culture-war messaging is not just shortsighted. It’s a security risk.

---

Sources

• University of Alaska Office of the President, FY2020 budget overview (state veto and reductions).

• University of Alaska Public Affairs timeline (2019 exigency and consolidation actions).

• Alaska Department of Administration, Dunleavy–UA three-year compact (2019).

• Anchorage Daily News, “$50M in grants frozen under Trump administration” (May 28, 2025).

• The Guardian, “Outcry as Trump withdraws support for research that mentions ‘climate’” (Feb. 21, 2025).

• UA/ACCAP, Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024 update).

• UAF Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (programs and mission).

• Empower Alaska: UA Arctic expertise overview.

• Wall Street Journal, Russia/China Arctic power projection and U.S. capability gaps (Feb. 2025).

• The Arctic Institute, shipping projections for the Northern Sea Route.

• Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vulnerabilities and governance challenges on the NSR.

• The Guardian, rollback of protections in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (Aug. 2025).

• Alaska Public Media, uneven cuts to Arctic research under Trump (Apr. 2025).

Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

Ambow CEO Has Repeatedly Slipped Through the Fingers of Shareholders and Regulators

In the opaque world of for-profit higher education, few figures have evoked the mixture of fascination and alarm generated by Jin Huang, CEO—and at times interim CFO and Board Chair—of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. Huang has repeatedly navigated financial crises, regulatory scrutiny, and institutional collapse with a Houdini-like flair. Yet the institutions under her control—most notably Bay State College and NewSchool of Architecture & Design—tell a far more troubling story.

---

Ambow’s Financial Labyrinth

Ambow, headquartered in the Cayman Islands with historic ties to Beijing (former address: No. 11 Xinyuanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China), has endured years of financial instability. As early as 2010, the company pursued ambitious acquisitions in the U.S. education market, including NewSchool and eventually Bay State College, often relying on opaque financing and cross-border investments.

By 2013, allegations of sham transactions and kickbacks forced Ambow into liquidation and reorganization. Yet the company repeatedly avoided delisting and collapse. Financial reports reveal a recurring pattern: near-catastrophe followed by minimal recovery. In 2023, net revenue fell 37.8% to $9.2 million with a $4.3 million operating loss. By 2024, Ambow reported a modest $0.3 million net income, narrowly avoiding another financial crisis. 

---

Early Years: 2010–2015

From 2010 to 2015, Ambow aggressively pursued U.S. acquisitions and technology projects while expanding its presence in China. The company leveraged offshore corporate structures and relied heavily on PRC-linked investors. Huang’s leadership style during this period prioritized expansion and publicity over sustainable governance, leaving institutions financially vulnerable.

Despite claims of educational innovation, Ambow’s track record in these years included multiple warnings from U.S. regulators and questionable accounting practices that would later contribute to shareholder lawsuits and delisting from the NYSE in 2014.

---

Bay State College: Closed Doors, Open Wounds

Acquired in 2017, Bay State College in Boston once enrolled over 1,200 students. By 2021, enrollment had collapsed, despite millions in federal COVID-era relief. In 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement over misleading marketing, telemarketing violations, and inflated job-placement claims.

Accreditation probation followed, culminating in NECHE’s withdrawal of accreditation in January 2023. Eviction proceedings for over $720,000 in unpaid rent preceded the college’s permanent closure in August 2023. Bay State’s demise exemplifies the consequences of Ambow’s pattern: the CEO escapes, the institution collapses, and students and faculty are left in the lurch.

---

NewSchool of Architecture & Design: Stabilization in San Diego

NewSchool, Ambow’s other U.S. acquisition, has faced persistent challenges. Enrollment has dropped below 300 students, and the school remains on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list. Leadership instability has been chronic: five presidents since 2020, with resignations reportedly tied to unpaid salaries and operational dysfunction.

As of 2025, lawsuits with Art Block Investors, LLC have been settled, and NewSchool is now housed in three floors of the WeWork building in downtown San Diego. Despite receiving a Notice of Concern from regional accreditor WSCUC, the college remains operational but financially precarious.

---

Questionable Credentials and Leadership Transparency

Huang has claimed to hold a PhD from the University of California, but investigation reveals no record of degree completion. This raises further concerns about leadership credibility and transparency. Ambow’s consolidated executive structure—Huang serving simultaneously as CEO, CFO, and Board Chair—exacerbates governance risks.

While headquartered in Cupertino, California, Ambow continues to operate with ties to Chinese interests. SEC filings from the PRC era acknowledged that the Chinese government exerted significant influence on the company’s business operations. Ambow has also expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners.

---

HybriU and the EdTech Hype

In 2024, Ambow launched HybriU, a hybrid learning platform promoted at CES and the ASU+GSV conference. Marketing materials claim a 5-in-1 AI-integrated solution for teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management, including immersive 3D classroom projections.

Yet there is no verifiable evidence of HybriU’s use in actual classrooms. A $1.3 million licensing deal with a recently formed Singapore company, Inspiring Futures, is the only reported commercial transaction. Photos on the platform’s website have been traced to stock images, and the “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology introduced in China in 2021 has not demonstrated measurable results in U.S. education settings.

Reports suggest that Ambow may be in preliminary talks with Colorado State University (CSU) to implement HybriU. HEI has not confirmed any formal partnership, and CSU has not publicly acknowledged engagement with the platform. Any potential relationship remains unverified, raising questions about the legitimacy and scope of Ambow’s outreach to U.S. universities.

Ambow’s 2025 press release promotes HybriU as a transformative global learning network, but HEI’s review finds no verified partnerships with accredited U.S. universities, no independent validation, and continued opacity regarding student outcomes or data security.

---

Financial Oversight and Auditor Concerns

Ambow commissioned a favorable report from Argus Research, but its research and development spending remains minimal—$100,000 per quarter. Prouden CPA, the current auditor based in China, is new to the company’s books and has limited experience auditing U.S. education operations. This raises questions about the reliability of Ambow’s financial reporting and governance practices.

---

The Illusion of Rescue

Jin Huang’s repeated escapes from regulatory and financial peril have earned her a reputation akin to Harry Houdini. But the cost of each act is borne not by the CEO, but by institutions, faculty, and students. Bay State College is closed. NewSchool remains operational in a WeWork facility but teeters on financial fragility. HybriU promises innovation but offers no proof.

Ambow’s trajectory demonstrates that a company can survive on hype, foreign influence, and minimal governance, while leaving the real consequences behind. Any unconfirmed talks with CSU highlight the ongoing risks for U.S. institutions considering engagement with Ambow. For regulators, students, and higher education stakeholders, Huang’s Houdini act is less a marvel than a warning.

---

Sources

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education Facing NYSE Delisting.” May 2022.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education and NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” October 2023.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design Lawsuits.” March 2025.

• Boston Globe. “Bay State College Faces Uncertain Future.” January 3, 2023.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Two Colleges Flounder Under Opaque For-Profit Owners.” October 18, 2022.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Bay State College Loses Accreditation Appeal.” March 21, 2023.

• GlobeNewswire. “Ambow Education Announces Full-Year 2024 Results.” March 28, 2025.

• Ambow Education Press Releases and SEC Filings

• Wikipedia. “Bay State College.” Accessed August 2025.

• Wikipedia. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” Accessed August 2025.

Stanford, Princeton, and MIT Among Top U.S. Universities Driving Global AI Research (Studocu)

• U.S. leads in global AI research with 232,000+ publications in four years, followed by China (217,000) and the UK (109,000).

• Stanford leads overall U.S. output with 12,019 AI publications; Princeton tops per-student rankings.

• MIT and Johns Hopkins achieve some of the highest global citation scores, showing far-reaching research impact

Artificial Intelligence is no longer niche. AI is reshaping a number of industries from healthcare, finance and the creative arts. To pinpoint where the most influential AI research is emerging, Studocu identified the top global universtities for computer science and analyzed their academic output.

The study analyzed the top 500 computer science institutions worldwode and cross referneced them institutions with the Semantic scholar database to see which school has been researching AI the most in recent years. It assessed the total number of peer-reviewed AI papers appearing in publications and how many times these papers were cited in other studies to reveal which institutions were driving AI research.

Global Highlights

• United States: 232,000+ AI-related publications in four years.

• China: 217,000+ publications.

• United Kingdom: Over 109,000 publications

• Australia: 92,000+ publications

The findings reveal that academia focused on researching AI is concentrated core of research powerhouses. The United States firmly in first place. U.S. institutions published over 232,000 AI-related articles in the past four years. With China closely following with 217,000 publications.

Top 10 Global Universities for AI Research

The table below ranks the leading institutions using a weighted score that factors in computer science rankings, citation impact, total publications, and per-student output. The United States leads in AI research taking seven of the spots out of the top ten.

While U.S. universities dominate the list, each has distinct strengths:

• Stanford University – Leads in total output with 12,019 AI publications and maintains a world-class Computer Science score of 93.76.

• Princeton University – Outperforms all others on a per-student basis, with 1.406 publications per enrolled student, showing exceptional research focus relative to size.

• MIT and Johns Hopkins University – Both excel in citation impact, with over 14,500 citations each from a sample of AI papers, reflecting global influence and relevance.

Dr Clare Walsh, Director of Education at the Institute of Analytics provided the following advice for those considering a career in AI Academia or in the professional world.

“There are many different roles in AI but it is not easy to break into higher salary AI jobs without suitable training. While there are a number of ‘tools’ on resumes which can help you get ahead, the soft skills are not optional. In general, we recommend anyone working with AI to have minimal ethics training and an understanding of the different technologies. In fact, some of the biggest AI research centers have a PhD as a minimum job entry requirement.”

ENDS

About Studocu:

StuDocu is a student-to-student knowledge exchange platform where students can share knowledge, college notes, and study guides.

Methodology

The Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings for Computer Science was used as a seedlist for the top 500 schools for computer science, which provided the overall score for the Computer Sicence ranking.
Using the Semantic Scholar API we filtered AI-related research from universities on the seedlist.
To identify AI research keywords such as “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” “LLM,” "generative AI" and “NLP.” Data was normalized for university size to calculate publications per enrolled student..

The final ranking was based on a weighted index:

• Computer Science average ranking (75%)

• Citation score (15%)

• Number of AI publications (5%)

• AI publications per student (5%)

Limitations: The analysis was based on the available data in the Semantic Scholar database. Keyword filtering may omit relevant work. While the Citation score was only able to research a sample of 200 peer-reviewed AI papers.

Smoke, Mirrors, and the HybriU Hustle: Ambow's Global Learning Pitch Raises Red Flags

On July 25, 2025, Ambow Education released a press statement heralding the launch of its HybriU Global Learning Network—a grand vision to connect U.S. universities with students around the world through AI-driven hybrid classrooms, immersive tech, and overseas support centers in places like Singapore and China. The announcement paints Ambow as a transformative edtech player capable of bypassing borders, red tape, and traditional learning models.

But for all its futuristic promises, the press release is long on hype and short on verifiable substance.

Ambow’s materials list no actual U.S. university partnerships. There are no student outcomes, no published evaluations, and no pricing models. Instead, the rollout appears to rest on vague invitations for licensing or revenue-sharing arrangements, alongside a photo shoot of stock images and boilerplate claims about AI, 3D environments, and "borderless" learning.

HEI's previous stories on Ambow Education are here. 

A Track Record of Trouble

Ambow’s track record hardly inspires confidence. Its U.S. acquisition, Bay State College, was fined by the Massachusetts Attorney General in 2020 for deceptive marketing and lost accreditation before closing in 2023. Another acquisition, NewSchool of Architecture & Design in San Diego, is under federal Heightened Cash Monitoring, has fewer than 300 students, and is embroiled in lawsuits over unpaid wages and bills.

Despite this, Ambow continues to market itself as a next-gen education leader while reporting zero dollars in research and development spending for three years running. Its executive leadership is unusually consolidated—CEO Jin Huang also serves as CFO and Board Chair—and its auditor is a little-known Chinese firm, casting doubt on financial transparency.

Universities Should Proceed with Caution

Ambow claims it can solve the international enrollment crisis for U.S. schools by providing overseas “learning centers” where students can engage in U.S. courses without needing a visa. It’s a seductive pitch in the wake of global travel restrictions, demographic cliffs, and state budget cuts. But unless Ambow can produce proof of academic rigor, data security, and actual delivery, U.S. institutions risk far more than bad PR.

So far, no university named in the company’s outreach has confirmed participation—including those Ambow has quietly courted, such as Colorado State University.

A Deafening Silence from Regulators

Following this latest press release, The Higher Education Inquirer sent detailed concerns and background information to:

• The Securities and Exchange Commission

• The U.S. Department of Education

• The U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party

• Multiple national and regional media outlets

None have responded.

Given the financial, academic, and geopolitical risks involved, this silence is as disturbing as the press release itself. If federal agencies, lawmakers, and the mainstream press won’t investigate edtech ventures like Ambow, who will hold them accountable?

The Pitch Doesn’t Match the Product

In an age where marketing often outpaces regulation and due diligence, Ambow’s HybriU project looks less like innovation and more like vaporware. It’s a business strategy built on perception, not performance.

Until Ambow can show real partnerships, transparent governance, and validated outcomes, universities would be wise to avoid becoming the next Bay State College.

Sources

Ambow Education press release via Yahoo Finance:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ambow-launches-hybriu-global-learning-100000841.html

Massachusetts Attorney General fine against Bay State College (2020):
https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-secures-relief-for-students-of-bay-state-college

Accreditation loss and closure of Bay State College:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/06/01/bay-state-college-officially-closes-after-months-of-controversy/

Heightened Cash Monitoring database, U.S. Department of Education:
https://studentaid.gov/data-center/school/hcm

Ambow Education SEC filings:
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1489947

NewSchool of Architecture lawsuits (public docket research required for updates)

How Immigration Has Fueled the Rise of Trumpism—and Changed Higher Education

In the United States, immigration has long been framed as a symbol of national pride—a beacon for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But in recent decades, as demographic, economic, and cultural shifts have accelerated, immigration has also become a flashpoint for political backlash. That backlash has taken on a powerful form in Trumpism: a nationalist-populist movement steeped in nativist fear, economic resentment, and white grievance politics. What’s often missing in mainstream analysis is how higher education—both as a driver and a symbol of immigration—has become entangled in this struggle.

At the center of this complexity is a contradictory truth: while much of Trumpism is fueled by anti-immigrant rhetoric and fear of demographic change, some of its most visible leaders and financial backers are themselves immigrants or children of immigrants, particularly from India. In the elite zones of tech, business, and politics, conservative Indian Americans are shaping immigration policy, university priorities, and even culture war narratives in ways that reinforce the very Trumpist ideology they supposedly should oppose.

American higher education has undergone a transformation over the past four decades—from a public good to a privatized, competitive marketplace. As state funding dried up, institutions turned to other sources of revenue: tuition, corporate partnerships, real estate development, and international students. Colleges and universities—particularly large public research institutions and elite private schools—ramped up recruitment of foreign students who could pay full price, especially from China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and increasingly, India.

Today, Indian nationals are the second-largest group of international students in the U.S., particularly in STEM fields and graduate programs. Their tuition dollars help subsidize faculty salaries, administrative bloat, and research labs. H-1B visa holders, many of them Indian engineers and tech workers, have become a cornerstone of the U.S. tech workforce—and a key component of university-sponsored visa pipelines. In many graduate programs, foreign students are the programs.

At the same time, working-class Americans—especially in rural areas and former manufacturing hubs—have watched colleges become unrecognizable. For many, the university has become a symbol not of opportunity but of exclusion: a place that speaks a foreign language (literally and culturally), employs foreign-born TAs, and caters to elite global interests while raising tuition and reducing services.

One of the most paradoxical developments in the Trumpist era is the rise of conservative Indian Americans as major players in business, politics, and education policy. Figures like Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and 2024 GOP presidential candidate, have become darlings of the MAGA movement, espousing anti-DEI rhetoric, rejecting multiculturalism, and calling for the dismantling of the administrative state—including large swaths of the Department of Education. Kash Patel, Ajit Pai, and others have served in prominent Trump administration roles, often pushing deregulation, aggressive nationalism, and the rollback of civil rights protections.

Many of these individuals are highly educated products of elite U.S. universities—Princeton, Harvard, Yale—who advocate for a vision of America rooted in "meritocracy," free markets, and Christian-coded traditional values. Their rise is no accident. They often come from upper-caste, upper-class families in India and align ideologically with India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. That ideology—Hindutva—is increasingly aligned with global authoritarian movements, including Trumpism, Putinism, and Zionist ethnonationalism.

In higher education, this conservative cohort supports crackdowns on campus protest, restrictions on Critical Race Theory, and the dismantling of diversity programs. Some even promote a two-tier immigration system: open pathways for high-skilled workers and university graduates like themselves, and closed doors for asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented immigrants.

Trumpist Republicans—often with support from conservative immigrants—have increasingly turned higher education into a battleground in the culture wars. In red states, new legislation and executive orders have targeted DEI offices, faculty unions, and ethnic studies departments. They have moved to restrict international student programs, especially for students from China and the Middle East, while simultaneously undermining tenure protections and academic freedom. Crackdowns on campus protests, often under the guise of "free speech," have been used to suppress progressive voices and student organizing.

As faculty ranks have become more diverse—and more contingent—conservatives have fought to reassert traditional hierarchies, often by using foreign-born faculty and graduate students as a wedge. Critics of tenure and academic “liberalism” claim that universities are out of touch with American values and serve foreign interests. Meanwhile, the same institutions continue to capitalize on the global student market, building campuses in Dubai and Singapore while closing rural extension centers at home.

Trumpism is not just a reaction to immigration itself, but to who benefits from it. At the top are elite immigrants—often from privileged caste backgrounds in India or affluent families in China—who attend top-tier universities and enter high-income fields. Below them are millions of working-class Americans saddled with student loan debt, gig jobs, and eroded social status. And beneath them still are the invisible laborers of higher education: the adjuncts, food service workers, janitors, and maintenance crews—many of them immigrants without documentation or legal protections.

This stratification of labor is mirrored in the classroom. International students often receive better advising, housing, and visa support than low-income domestic students, particularly Black, Latino, and Native students. Colleges may invest in ESL services and global partnerships while cutting mental health counseling, rural outreach, and Pell-eligible student aid.

Immigration is not the cause of Trumpism—but it is the mirror in which many Americans see their own social decline. And higher education has played a central role in projecting that mirror. When universities prioritize international growth over local development, or when elite immigrants champion policies that punish the poor and undocumented, they unwittingly feed the very movement that seeks to close the gates behind them.

Trumpism, for all its contradictions, thrives on this resentment. It exploits the divisions between “model minorities” and “undeserving poor,” between elite institutions and everyday people. It turns the American university—from Berkeley to Ohio State—into a symbol of what has been lost, even as it pretends to offer a way forward.

Immigration and higher education are deeply interwoven in the American story. But as higher ed becomes increasingly globalized, privatized, and stratified, it risks alienating the very people it claims to serve. The rise of Trumpism is not just a rejection of immigrants—it is a rejection of an education system that many see as rigged, elitist, and complicit in their decline.

The challenge for those of us in higher education—and especially for immigrants who have benefitted from it—is to confront these contradictions honestly. We must rethink who higher education serves. We must recognize how caste, class, and color operate not only across borders but within them.

For the Higher Education Inquirer, this is not a call for scapegoating immigrants, but for deeper analysis. How did we arrive at a system where elite global mobility coexists with mass domestic precarity? And what would it look like to build a higher education system rooted in justice—not just for the few who arrive, but for the many who are left behind?

“You Don’t Need a Tariff. You Need a Revolution”: A Viral Wake-Up Call—Or CCP Propaganda?

In a clip that’s rapidly gone viral among both left-leaning critics of neoliberalism and right-wing populists, a young Chinese TikTok influencer delivers a searing indictment of American economic decline. Fluent in English and confident in tone, the speaker lays bare what many struggling Americans already feel: that they’ve been conned by their own elites.

“They robbed you blind and you thank them for it. That’s a tragedy. That’s a scam,” the young man declares, addressing the American people directly.

The video, played and discussed on Judging Freedom with Judge Andrew Napolitano and Professor John Mearsheimer, has sparked praise—and suspicion. While the message resonates with a growing number of Americans disillusioned by the bipartisan political establishment, some are asking: Who is behind this message?

 
A Sharp Critique of American Oligarchy

In his 90-second monologue, the influencer claims U.S. oligarchs offshored manufacturing to China for profit—not diplomacy—gutting the middle class, crashing the working class, and leaving Americans with stagnating wages, unaffordable healthcare, mass addiction, and what he calls “flag-waving poverty made in China.” Meanwhile, he says, China reinvested its profits into its people, raising living standards and building infrastructure.

“What did your oligarchs do? They bought yachts, private jets, and mansions… You get stagnated wages, crippling healthcare costs, cheap dopamine, debt, and flag-waving poverty made in China.”

He ends with a provocative call: “You don’t need another tariff. You need to wake up… You need a revolution.”

It’s a blistering populist critique—and one that finds unexpected agreement from Mearsheimer, who said on the show, “I basically agree with him. I think he’s correct.”
A Message That Cuts Across Party Lines

The critique echoes themes found in Donald Trump’s early campaign rhetoric, as well as long-standing leftist arguments about neoliberal betrayal, corporate offshoring, and elite impunity. It’s the kind of message that unites the American underclass in its many forms—service workers, laid-off factory employees, disillusioned veterans, and student debtors alike.

Mearsheimer went on to argue that the U.S. national security establishment itself was compromised—that its consultants and former officials had deep financial ties to China, making them unwilling to confront the geopolitical risks of China’s rise. According to him, elites were more invested in their own gain than in the national interest.

But that raises an even more complicated question.

 
Is This an Authentic Voice—or a CCP Production?

The most provocative—and potentially overlooked—aspect of this story is the medium itself: TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance, a company under heavy scrutiny for its ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Could this slick, emotionally resonant video be part of a broader soft-power campaign?

The Chinese government has invested heavily in media operations that shape global narratives. While the content of the message may be factually accurate or emotionally true for many Americans, it’s not hard to imagine the CCP welcoming—if not engineering—videos that sow further division and distrust within the United States.

The video’s flawless production, powerful rhetoric, and clever framing—presenting China as the responsible partner and the U.S. as self-destructive—align closely with Beijing’s global messaging. Add to this the timing, with U.S.-China tensions running high over tariffs, Taiwan, and global power shifts, and the question becomes unavoidable:

Is this sincere grassroots criticism… or a polished psychological operation?

The answer may be both. It’s entirely possible that the young man believes everything he’s saying. But it’s also likely that content like this is algorithmically favored—or even quietly encouraged—by a platform closely tied to a government with every incentive to highlight American decline.
Weaponized Truth?

This is not a new tactic. During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the USSR employed truth-tellers and defectors to criticize their adversaries. But in today's digital landscape, the boundaries between propaganda, whistleblowing, and legitimate dissent are more porous than ever.

The Higher Education Inquirer has reported extensively on how American elites—across both political parties—have betrayed working people, including within the halls of higher education. That doesn’t mean we should ignore where a message comes from, or what strategic purpose it might serve.

The danger is not just foreign interference. The greater danger may be that such foreign-origin messages ring so true for so many Americans.
A Closing Thought: Listen Carefully, Then Ask Why

The influencer says:

“You let the oligarchs feed your lies while they made you fat, poor, and addicted… I don’t think you need another tariff. You need to wake up.”

He’s not wrong to say Americans have been exploited. But if the message is being boosted by a rival authoritarian state, it’s worth asking why.

America’s problems are real. Its discontent is justified. But as in all revolutions, the question is not only what we’re overthrowing—but what might take its place.

Sources:

Judging Freedom – Judge Andrew Napolitano and Professor John Mearsheimer

TikTok (ByteDance) ownership and CCP ties – Reuters, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal

The Higher Education Inquirer archives on student debt, adjunct labor, and corporate-academic complicity

Pew Research Center – Views of China, U.S. Public Opinion

Congressional hearings on TikTok and national security, 2023–2024

Trump’s March Backward

The United States is witnessing an alarming shift in the balance of power. Recent actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have effectively cleared the way for President Donald Trump to exercise authority in ways critics say resemble authoritarian rule.

Central to this shift is the Supreme Court’s decision on July 8, 2025, to allow Trump’s mass federal layoffs to proceed. This ruling overturned a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily blocked the president’s executive order to slash tens of thousands of federal jobs. The layoffs target agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services, critical players in addressing climate change, public health, and education.

The court’s decision was unsigned and passed 8–1, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Her dissent warned that the ruling emboldens the president to exceed constitutional limits without proper checks.

Just weeks earlier, Congress passed what supporters called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping budget package that enshrined Trump-era tax cuts, eliminated taxes on tips and Social Security income, and drastically reduced funding for social safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP. The bill also increased Pentagon spending by $125 billion. The legislation passed strictly along party lines, with no Democratic votes.

The atmosphere of intensifying executive authority was underscored on June 14, 2025, when Trump staged a large-scale military parade in Washington, D.C., reminiscent of displays typically seen in authoritarian regimes. The parade featured tanks, fighter jets, and thousands of troops marching through the capital, a spectacle widely criticized as an exercise in pageantry and a troubling signal of militarism. In response, spontaneous “No Kings” protests erupted nationwide, with demonstrators rejecting what they saw as the cultivation of a personality cult and warning against the erosion of democratic norms.

These domestic developments unfold against a backdrop of escalating global crises and geopolitical realignments. The Trump administration has maintained a confrontational stance toward China, imposing new tariffs that have intensified a growing economic cold war. This friction comes as the BRICS coalition — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — gains strength, seeking alternatives to the U.S.-dominated financial and diplomatic order.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to supply arms and financial support to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, while simultaneously imposing inconsistent policies that weaken its international credibility, especially regarding the unresolved Palestinian conflict.

At home, the Trump administration’s deregulation of the cryptocurrency market has raised alarms. With minimal oversight, the growing crypto economy faces increased risks of fraud and instability, a symptom of the broader laissez-faire approach that favors corporate interests over public protections.

Adding to domestic turmoil, Trump has controversially pardoned dozens of individuals convicted for their roles in the January 6 Capitol insurrection, framing them as “political prisoners.” Many have ties to extremist groups, and Trump has proposed hiring preferences for them within the federal government’s newly created Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the controversial federal workforce layoffs.

Legal experts and civil rights organizations argue these actions collectively undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers. They say the administration’s use of executive orders and politically motivated pardons bypasses Congress and the courts, weakening democratic oversight.

Congress’s role has also been questioned. By passing the partisan budget bill without bipartisan support, critics argue lawmakers have effectively rubber-stamped an agenda that dismantles government functions, cuts vital social programs, and expands military spending.

The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling to lift the injunction against the layoffs further signals the judiciary’s retreat from its role as a check on executive power. By acting swiftly and without a full hearing, the court has allowed a significant reshaping of the federal workforce without thorough judicial review.

Together, these developments mark a troubling trend toward the concentration of power in the executive branch. Observers warn that if left unchecked, these actions could erode the foundations of American democracy and weaken its position in an increasingly multipolar world.

---

Sources

San Francisco Chronicle, “Supreme Court clears way for Trump to resume mass federal layoffs” (July 8, 2025)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/trump-mass-firings-20761715.php

Associated Press, “Trump signs sweeping tax, spending bill on July 4” (July 4, 2025)
https://apnews.com/article/3804df732e461a626fd8c2b43413c3f0

Politico, “House Republicans pass ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after weeks of division” (May 22, 2025)
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/22/house-republicans-pass-big-beautiful-bill-00364691

Business Insider, “Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump’s federal layoffs” (July 8, 2025)
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-trump-firings-federal-agencies-2025-7

Washington Post, “Trump begins mass commutations for Jan. 6 rioters, defends actions as ‘justice reform’” (March 1, 2025)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/01/trump-jan-6-pardons

Medicare Rights Center, “Final House vote looms on devastating health and food assistance cuts” (July 3, 2025)
https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2025/07/03/final-house-vote-looms-on-devastating-health-and-food-assistance-cuts

How the Trump Spending Bill Undermines U.S. National Security—and Strengthens China and Russia

The Trump-backed spending bill, now back in the U.S. House after passing the Senate, is a masterclass in short-term thinking and long-term self-destruction. Framed as a “Big, Beautiful” plan to restore fiscal discipline and American greatness, the legislation guts the very pillars of U.S. national power: public education, scientific research, clean energy innovation, and social stability. While it throws billions at the Pentagon and fossil fuel subsidies, it slashes the public investments that actually determine whether a country can compete in the 21st century.

By hollowing out education, defunding clean energy programs, and dismantling the civilian R&D infrastructure, the bill hands strategic advantages to authoritarian competitors like China and Russia. It weakens America not through direct confrontation—but through willful neglect of the systems that make a nation resilient, adaptable, and globally influential.

Gutted: America's Brainpower and Knowledge Economy

The spending bill imposes major cuts to federal funding for public colleges, student aid programs, and agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Department of Energy’s Office of Science. These institutions are not bureaucratic waste—they are engines of innovation that fuel entire sectors of the U.S. economy and form the intellectual backbone of national security.

China knows this. Its government has expanded investment in top-tier universities, AI, green tech, biotech, and quantum computing. In contrast, the U.S.—once the global leader in research and discovery—is now flirting with intellectual disarmament. Russia, though economically weaker, has also retained strong state control over critical research in energy and defense.

Clean Energy Sidelined—A Strategic Blunder

Perhaps the most dangerous provision in the bill is its rollback of clean energy investments. In a global race to dominate the energy systems of the future, this bill puts the U.S. in reverse. Key provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—including tax incentives for solar, wind, battery manufacturing, and electric vehicle production—are defunded or delayed. Climate-related research and Department of Energy grants are also on the chopping block.

This isn’t just bad environmental policy—it’s a geopolitical gift to Beijing and Moscow. China is already the world leader in solar panel manufacturing, electric vehicle production, and battery supply chains. Russia, meanwhile, depends on continued fossil fuel dominance. By kneecapping its own clean tech industry, the U.S. effectively cedes both economic and strategic terrain to its rivals.

Social Fragmentation: A National Security Threat

National security isn’t only about military power—it’s also about internal cohesion. By making college less accessible, eliminating student loan forgiveness, and worsening inequality, the Trump spending bill undermines the social contract. Millions of Americans, particularly young people, will see fewer paths to stability, upward mobility, or meaningful civic participation. That growing sense of abandonment is exactly the kind of vulnerability that foreign disinformation campaigns exploit.

Adversaries don't need to defeat the U.S. militarily if it’s already imploding internally. The seeds of unrest, division, and despair are sown by domestic policy—especially when it prioritizes tax cuts for the rich and weapons systems over education, climate resilience, and economic fairness.

Civilian Tech and Cybersecurity Left Exposed

The bill fails to support civilian cybersecurity, privacy infrastructure, and next-generation technologies outside of military procurement. Yet most cyber vulnerabilities and technological innovations originate in the civilian sector, much of it publicly funded. Cutting university research, technology transfer programs, and broadband expansion weakens America's ability to counter cyberattacks and AI-driven threats from China and Russia.

Meanwhile, China’s “Military-Civil Fusion” ensures that academic research, industrial policy, and military planning operate in lockstep. The U.S. is doing the opposite—undermining the very institutions that can build democratic resilience in the face of hybrid warfare.

A Blueprint for Decline

This legislation is not just a spending plan. It’s a strategic realignment—one that favors corporate profits, fossil fuels, and elite donors while undercutting the nation’s human and technological foundations. In the long run, no number of tanks or tax cuts can make up for a collapsed education system, a dead-end economy, and a planet on fire.

If passed in the House and signed into law, the Trump-backed spending bill will accelerate America's decline and embolden its adversaries. It is a self-inflicted wound dressed up as patriotism—and China and Russia are watching, patiently and profitably.

---

Sources:

• The Hill: “Student Loans Become Flashpoint in Trump-Backed Senate Spending Bill” (July 1, 2025)

• Politico: “Inside the GOP's 'Big, Beautiful' Spending Reconciliation Plan” (June 30, 2025)

• DOE FY2025 Budget Summary (retrieved from House Committee on Appropriations)

• National Science Board: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2024

• Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): “China’s Tech Rise and Civil-Military Fusion”

• Rhodium Group: Clean Energy Investment Trends, 2025

• BloombergNEF: Global Race for Clean Tech: U.S. vs China

For more investigative journalism on education, inequality, and public power, visit Higher Education Inquirer.

The Dark History of Yale University: Power, Privilege, and Complicity in Genocide

Yale University, long celebrated for its intellectual prestige and political influence, has carefully cultivated an image of moral and civic leadership. But beneath the carefully constructed brand lies a history mired in racism, elitism, secrecy, and direct complicity in acts of violence—including genocide. From its early support of settler colonialism to its modern entanglements with war profiteering and imperial policy, Yale has not simply been a passive observer of atrocity, but in many cases, an active participant or enabler.

Founded in 1701 on land taken from the Quinnipiac people, Yale’s earliest benefactors enriched themselves through slavery, land theft, and violent religious expansionism. The institution was deeply tied to Puritan theology and settler colonialism, which justified the displacement and extermination of Native peoples in New England and beyond. Yale College educated generations of ministers, judges, and politicians who championed Manifest Destiny and Indian removal policies—ideologies and practices that resulted in the deaths and forced migrations of hundreds of thousands of Indigenous people across the continent. In this sense, Yale was not only born of colonialism; it helped write and preach the intellectual and religious justifications for genocide.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Yale’s scientific and anthropological institutions played an instrumental role in legitimizing eugenics and racial pseudoscience. Professors affiliated with Yale promoted theories of white supremacy, while the university's alumni became architects of U.S. imperialism abroad. Yale graduates were deeply involved in violent campaigns in the Philippines, Latin America, and the Caribbean—campaigns that destroyed communities, repressed national movements, and imposed economic and racial hierarchies through military and corporate force.

In the 20th century, Yale became an incubator for the Cold War security state. The university cultivated close ties with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Skull and Bones, Yale’s secret society, became a recruitment pipeline for covert operations that supported right-wing dictatorships and death squads across the Global South. Yale men were involved in U.S.-backed coups in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), and Indonesia (1965)—many of which led to mass killings and long-term political repression. Some of these operations resulted in genocidal violence, such as the U.S.-supported extermination of hundreds of thousands of suspected communists in Indonesia.

Yale's complicity has continued into the 21st century. The university and its alumni were instrumental in shaping the so-called War on Terror, which led to the invasion of Iraq—a war based on lies, responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the displacement of millions. Yale Law School graduates like John Yoo and Harold Koh wrote or defended legal justifications for torture, targeted killings, and indefinite detention. Others helped normalize drone warfare, which has devastated communities in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. These are not merely policy failures—they are crimes against humanity in which Yale-educated policymakers, lawyers, and think tank intellectuals have played central roles.

Yale’s investments also raise questions about complicity in structural violence. The university’s massive $40+ billion endowment is largely hidden from public scrutiny, but investigative reporting and activist pressure have revealed connections to fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, and multinational corporations that profit from land dispossession, labor exploitation, and environmental degradation. Yale’s refusal to fully divest from these industries—despite sustained student and faculty protests—aligns it with forces that contribute to ecological collapse and human displacement on a global scale.

In recent years, Yale has made limited efforts to confront its dark history. These include renaming buildings previously honoring staunch defenders of slavery and colonialism, sponsoring research projects on the university’s ties to slavery, and promoting diversity initiatives. However, these gestures, while notable, are overwhelmed by the institution’s long record of harmful acts. The scale and depth of Yale’s complicity in oppression and violence far outstrip these piecemeal reforms, leaving the university’s fundamental structures of power intact and unchallenged.

This is not merely a matter of history. As the world confronts genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, the repression of Uyghurs in China, and the persecution of Indigenous communities in the Amazon, Yale has failed to take meaningful stands. Its silence on current atrocities, particularly those committed or enabled by U.S. allies and business partners, reflects a persistent institutional cowardice masked as neutrality. The university continues to host and celebrate figures implicated in these atrocities while marginalizing the voices of those calling for justice.

Meanwhile, Yale benefits from the labor of underpaid staff and the gentrification of New Haven, all while operating as a tax-exempt institution that hoards wealth rather than redistributing it. Yale’s rhetoric of inclusion and social justice cannot obscure its structural role in global systems of domination and violence.

The dark history of Yale is not a footnote—it is central to understanding how elite education functions in a global empire. Yale has helped shape the world not only through scholarship and leadership, but through conquest, secrecy, and the normalization of genocide. To confront this truth requires more than renaming buildings or commissioning reports. It demands reparations, divestment, decolonization, and a total reimagining of what higher education can and should be.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on these institutional contradictions, shining a light on the real consequences of elite complicity. As long as Yale and its peers remain unaccountable, they will continue to reproduce the very systems they claim to critique.

Scientific Publishers Flooded with Fake Research: A Growing Crisis in Academia

A recent article in Het Financieele Dagblad (FD) has exposed a deepening crisis within the academic publishing world: a tidal wave of fraudulent research papers infiltrating scientific journals. These papers, often generated by so-called "paper mills," represent a form of organized academic fraud that is overwhelming the traditional safeguards of scholarly publishing. The consequences are dire, not just for publishers and researchers, but for the integrity of science itself.

Scientific publishers are increasingly struggling to detect and stop the flow of fabricated articles. In 2023 alone, more than 10,000 papers were retracted globally—a record high that signals a broken system under immense strain. At the heart of the problem are industrial-scale operations that mass-produce articles, manipulate data and images, and even sell authorship to desperate or unscrupulous academics. The incentives are clear: in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, and Iran, academic advancement is frequently tied to publication metrics, with researchers pressured to publish frequently, regardless of quality. This "publish or perish" culture is not limited to these countries—it has become a global phenomenon that distorts academic priorities and undermines the values of honest scholarship.

Some of the world’s most established publishers are now being forced to act decisively. Wiley, one of the largest academic publishers, recently shut down 19 journals and retracted more than 11,000 articles—primarily from its Hindawi imprint—as part of a sweeping response to paper mill infiltration. These actions follow investigations revealing widespread manipulation of peer review, citation rings, and the use of template-based writing tools designed to mimic legitimate scientific prose. Other publishers have followed suit, quietly retracting hundreds of suspicious papers and investing in forensic software to detect plagiarism, image manipulation, and statistical anomalies.

What makes this crisis particularly alarming is the erosion of public trust in science and higher education. When fraudulent papers appear in supposedly peer-reviewed journals, the entire academic enterprise is called into question. Resources—both financial and intellectual—are wasted as real researchers chase the ghosts of fake findings, sometimes basing their own work on completely fabricated data. This undermines the credibility of entire disciplines and can have far-reaching effects, especially in areas such as biomedical research, public health, and environmental science.

In response, publishers are deploying increasingly sophisticated tools, including artificial intelligence, to flag suspicious manuscripts. Programs like the Problematic Paper Screener and Papermill Alarm are being used to scan thousands of articles for telltale signs of fraud. However, these technological solutions are playing catch-up to a rapidly evolving problem. Some journals have also established editorial task forces focused solely on fraud detection, and industry-wide collaboration is beginning to take shape. Watchdog organizations such as Retraction Watch continue to highlight egregious cases, drawing attention to a problem that still receives too little scrutiny in mainstream academia.

The FD article makes clear that the fight against paper mills is not just about bad actors; it’s about a system that rewards quantity over quality. Until institutions, funders, and governments change the metrics by which academic success is measured, the paper mill industry will continue to thrive. The push for more rigorous standards, better peer review, and a reorientation toward research integrity must become a priority, especially for university leaders and regulators.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we’ve tracked many scandals across higher education—from student loan exploitation to for-profit college fraud—but the explosion of fake science is especially insidious. It reaches into the very foundation of higher learning and research. If we fail to address it systemically, the damage could be lasting. Scientific knowledge is built incrementally, and when falsehoods pollute the record, progress grinds to a halt—or worse, proceeds on false premises.

The academic community must confront this crisis with transparency and resolve. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public trust and of the countless researchers striving to produce knowledge that genuinely advances our understanding of the world.

Harvard, Russia, and the Quiet Complicity of American Higher Education

In the fog of elite diplomacy and global finance, some of the United States' most prestigious universities—chief among them, Harvard—have long had entangled and often opaque relationships with authoritarian regimes. While recent headlines focus on China’s influence in higher education, far less attention has been paid to the role elite U.S. institutions have played in legitimizing, enabling, and profiting from post-Soviet Russia’s slide into oligarchy and repression.

The Harvard-Russia Nexus

Harvard University, through its now-infamous Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), was a key player in Russia's economic transition following the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the 1990s, HIID, backed by millions of dollars in U.S. government aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), provided advice on privatization and market reforms in Russia. This effort, touted as a cornerstone of democracy promotion, instead helped consolidate power among a small class of oligarchs, fueling the economic inequality and corruption that ultimately laid the foundation for Vladimir Putin's authoritarian rule.

Harvard’s involvement reached scandalous proportions. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Harvard, economist Andrei Shleifer (a professor in Harvard's Economics Department), and others for self-dealing and conflict of interest. Shleifer and his associates were found to have used their insider access to enrich themselves and their families through Russian investments, all while supposedly advising the Russian government on behalf of the American taxpayer. Harvard eventually paid $26.5 million to settle the case.

Though the scandal damaged HIID's reputation and led to its closure, the broader complicity of the academic and financial elite in exploiting Russia’s vulnerability during the 1990s has received little sustained scrutiny.

Lawrence Summers and the Russian Connection

At the center of this story sits Lawrence Summers—a former Harvard president, U.S. Treasury Secretary, and one of the most powerful figures in the transatlantic economic order. Summers was both mentor and close associate of Andrei Shleifer. During the critical years of Russian privatization, Summers served as Undersecretary and later Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, while Shleifer operated HIID’s Russia project.

Despite the blatant conflict of interest, Summers never publicly disavowed Shleifer's actions. After returning to Harvard, he brought Shleifer back into the university’s good graces, protecting his tenured position and helping him avoid serious institutional consequences. This protection underscored the tight-knit nature of elite networks where accountability is rare and reputations are guarded like intellectual property.

Summers himself has invested in Russia through various vehicles over the years, and has held lucrative advisory roles with financial firms deeply enmeshed in post-Soviet economies. He also played an advisory role for Russian tech giant Yandex and has appeared at events sponsored by firms with deep Russian connections. While Summers has since criticized the Putin regime, his earlier role in enabling the very conditions that empowered it is seldom discussed in polite academic company.

A Broader Pattern of Complicity

Harvard is not alone. Institutions like Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago have produced scholars, consultants, and think tanks that helped construct the framework of neoliberal transition in Russia and Eastern Europe. These universities not only trained many of the Russian technocrats who later served in Putin’s government, but also quietly benefited from international partnerships, fellowships, and endowments tied to post-Soviet wealth.

Endowments at elite institutions remain shrouded in secrecy, and it is not always possible to trace the sources of foreign gifts or investments. But it’s clear that Russian oligarchs—many of whom owe their fortunes to the very privatization schemes U.S. economists championed—have made donations to elite Western universities or served on their advisory boards. Some sponsored academic centers and fellowships designed to burnish their reputations or reframe narratives about Russia’s transformation.

The Death of a Dissident

The failure of Western academic institutions to reckon with their role in Russia’s descent into authoritarianism became all the more glaring with the death of Alexei Navalny in February 2024. Navalny, a fierce critic of corruption and Putin’s regime, was imprisoned and ultimately killed for challenging the very system that U.S. advisers like those from Harvard helped engineer. While universities issued public statements condemning his death, few acknowledged the deeper complicity of their faculty, programs, and funders in building the oligarchic structures Navalny spent his life trying to dismantle.

Navalny repeatedly exposed how Russian wealth was funneled into offshore accounts and Western real estate, often aided by a global network of enablers—including lawyers, bankers, and academics in the West. His death is not just a symbol of Putin’s brutality—it is also a damning indictment of the institutions, both in Russia and abroad, that failed to stop it and, in many cases, profited along the way.

Where is the Accountability?

Despite the Shleifer scandal and Russia’s authoritarian consolidation, there has been no independent reckoning from Harvard or its peer institutions about their role in the failures of the 1990s or the long-term consequences of their economic evangelism. The neoliberal ideology that fueled these efforts—steeped in faith in free markets, minimal regulation, and elite technocracy—remains dominant in elite policy circles, even as it faces growing critique from both left and right.

Meanwhile, institutions like Harvard continue to influence global policy through their academic prestige, think tanks, and alumni networks. They remain powerful arbiters of truth—shaping how the public understands foreign policy, democracy, and capitalism—while rarely acknowledging their own entanglement in the darker chapters of globalization.

Elite Academia and Oligarchy

The story of Harvard and Russia is not just a tale of one institution’s failure; it is emblematic of the broader failure of elite American academia to confront its own role in the spread of oligarchy, inequality, and authoritarianism under the banner of liberal democracy. In an age when higher education is under increased scrutiny for its political and financial entanglements, the need for critical journalism and public accountability has never been greater.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate these complex relationships—and demand transparency from the institutions that claim to serve the public good, while operating behind a veil of privilege and power. Navalny’s sacrifice deserves more than hollow statements. It requires a full accounting of how the system he died fighting was built—with help from the most powerful university in the world.

Murky Waters 2: Ambow Education, Chinese Influence, and US Edtech, 2013-2025

In Chinese culture, there’s an old proverb: “混水摸鱼” — “In murky waters, it is easier to catch fish.” The lesson is clear: confusion and opacity benefit those looking to manipulate outcomes for personal gain. In politics, finance, and international affairs, it is a warning. In the case of Ambow Education Holding Ltd., it may be a roadmap.

On June 26, 2025, Ambow announced a partnership with the tiny University of the West (UWest), a Buddhist college in Rosemead, California, enrolling just 153 students. The deal will implement Ambow’s HybriU platform—a so-called “phygital” learning solution combining digital and physical education delivery—positioning the technology as a tool for expanding U.S. academic access to international students. But a closer look reveals a story less about educational innovation than about power, soft influence, and the financialization of struggling institutions.

Ambow, a Cayman Islands–registered and formerly Beijing-based EdTech firm, has quietly entrenched itself in U.S. higher education. While other sectors of the U.S. economy—especially semiconductors and AI—have become more cautious of Chinese-linked investment due to national security concerns, American higher education remains notably exposed. The Ambow-UWest partnership exemplifies that vulnerability.

This is not Ambow’s first foray into U.S. academia. In 2013, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and liquidated after accusations of accounting irregularities. Rebranded and restructured offshore, Ambow re-entered the market, acquiring distressed for-profit colleges. In 2017, it bought Bay State College in Boston. Three years later, Massachusetts fined the school $1.1 million for fraudulent advertising, inflated placement rates, and illegal telemarketing. The school shuttered in 2023 after eliminating key services, including its library, and squandering pandemic-era federal aid.

In 2020, Ambow acquired the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego. Since then, NewSchool has appeared on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 list, signifying severe financial instability. Lawsuits followed, including one for unpaid rent and another over compensation disputes involving the school’s former president.

Still, Ambow continues to market itself as a leader in “AI-driven” phygital innovation. HybriU, its flagship platform, has been promoted at edtech and investor conferences like CES and ASU-GSV, with lofty promises about immersive education and intelligent classrooms. But the evidence is thin. The platform’s website contains vague marketing language, no peer-reviewed validation, no public client list, and stock images masquerading as real users. Its core technology, OOOK (One-on-One Knowledge), was piloted in China in 2021 but shows no signs of adoption by credible U.S. institutions.

Why, then, would a college like University of the West—or potentially a major public institution like Colorado State University (CSU), reportedly exploring a partnership with Ambow—risk associating with such an entity?

To understand the stakes, we must follow the money and the power behind the brand.

Ambow’s largest shareholder bloc is controlled by Jian-Yue Pan (aka Pan Jianyue), a Chinese executive with deep ties to the country’s tech and investment elite. Pan is general partner of CEIHL Partners I and II, two Cayman Islands entities that control roughly 26.7 percent of Ambow’s publicly floated Class A shares. He also chairs Uphill Investment Co., which is active in the semiconductor and electronics sectors, and holds board positions in tech firms with connections to Tsinghua University—one of China’s premier talent pipelines for its national strategic industries.

Pan’s voting control over Ambow gives him sweeping influence over its corporate decisions, executive appointments, and strategic direction. His role raises critical concerns about the use of U.S. higher education infrastructure as a potential channel for data access, market expansion, and soft geopolitical influence.

To further legitimize its U.S. operations, Ambow recently appointed James Bartholomew as company president. Bartholomew’s resume includes controversial stints at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While at DeVry, the institution was fined $100 million by the FTC for deceptive marketing. At Adtalem, he oversaw operations criticized for offshore medical schools and active resistance to gainful employment regulations.

Even Ambow’s financial underpinnings are suspect. Its R&D spending hovers around $100,000 per quarter—trivial for a firm purporting to lead in AI and immersive tech. Its audits are performed by Prouden CPA, a virtually unknown Chinese firm, not one of the major global accounting networks. These red flags suggest not a dynamic tech company, but a shell operation kept afloat by hype, misdirection, and strategic ambiguity.

That makes its ambitions in U.S. public education all the more dangerous.

Reports that Colorado State University—a land-grant institution managing sensitive federal research—may be considering a partnership with Ambow should prompt urgent scrutiny. Has CSU conducted a full cybersecurity and national security risk assessment? Have university stakeholders—faculty, students, and the public—been involved in the review process? Or is the university racing blindly into an agreement driven by budget pressures and buzzwords?

American higher education has long been susceptible to bad actors promising solutions to enrollment declines and funding shortfalls. But in recent years, the cost of these decisions has grown. With campuses increasingly dependent on international student tuition and digital platforms, the door has opened to exploitative operators and geopolitical influence.

Ambow has already shuttered one U.S. college. Its remaining campus is on shaky footing. Its technology lacks serious vetting. Its leadership is tethered to past scandals. And its largest shareholder has interests far beyond education.

This is not just about Ambow. It is about the structural vulnerabilities in American higher education—an industry ripe for manipulation by financial speculators, tech opportunists, and foreign actors operating with impunity. The murky waters of privatized, digitized education reward those who operate without transparency.

Public universities must remember who they serve: students, faculty, and the public—not offshore shareholders or unproven platforms.

If Colorado State or any other institution moves forward with Ambow, they owe the public clear answers: What protections are in place? What risks are being considered? Who really controls the platforms delivering instruction? And most importantly, why are public institutions turning to unstable, opaque companies for core educational delivery?

As the proverb reminds us, murky waters are fertile ground for hidden agendas. But education, above all, demands clarity, integrity, and public accountability.

---

Sources:

• SEC filings and 20-F reports: sec.gov

• Massachusetts Attorney General settlement with Bay State College, March 2020

• Federal Trade Commission settlement with DeVry University, December 2016

• U.S. Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring List

• NYSE delisting notices, 2013

• CES and ASU-GSV conference archives, 2023–2024

• Corporate data from MarketScreener and CEIHL Partners

• Ambow’s 2023 Annual Report and quarterly 6-K filings