Michigan State Challenged Report on Chinese Ties
The university disputed findings in a report claiming it assisted in Chinese psychological warfare.
Updated on Sept. 24, 2026 in Higher Education
Live Poll
Should universities be held responsible for the political activities of their international academic partners?
Michigan State University has challenged a report from the firm Strategy Risks that linked the school to Chinese propaganda efforts. The report alleges the university engaged in partnerships that supported Chinese state goals.
Why it matters
The dispute highlights growing national scrutiny over academic collaborations between American universities and foreign institutions. Such partnerships are increasingly questioned for potential involvement in geopolitical influence and security risks.
A 13-page report from Strategy Risks details a 2019 dual-degree program between Michigan State and the Communication University of China. The report outlines an agreement to transfer 10% of tuition from East Lansing students to a staff fund.
The players
Michigan State University
This is a public research university located in East Lansing that is currently defending its academic partnerships.
Strategy Risks
This New York City-based firm specializes in identifying corporate and academic exposure to Chinese geopolitical risks.
Communication University of China
This Beijing-based institution is a state-run university cited in the report for its involvement in dual-degree programs.
Yang Yi
He is identified in the report as a former party propaganda chief involved with the MSU-CUC academic program.
The details
Strategy Risks published a report alleging that the university assisted in psychological warfare through academic channels, including a 2022 faculty expense agreement. Michigan State University maintains that these programs were never actually activated despite the agreements.
Timeline
Michigan State and the Communication University of China established a dual-degree program in 2019.
A faculty expense agreement was signed between the institutions in 2022.
The university agreement with Shanghai Normal University expired in 2022.
Strategy Risks released its report in September 2026.
Culture Shift
This dispute marks a departure from traditional university autonomy, reflecting a broader societal shift toward scrutinizing institutional ties to foreign state interests. It aligns with a growing movement demanding transparency in how global academic collaborations are funded and managed.
The controversy may lead to shifts in administrative policies at Michigan State University regarding international travel and collaborative funding. Students and staff should monitor the university website for updates on changes to internal oversight procedures for future academic agreements.
The takeaway
Academic institutions are under increasing pressure to balance global cooperation with transparency regarding their foreign agreements. Students and faculty should be aware of the administrative and ethical frameworks governing their school's external partnerships.
Further reading
For more background on the evolving standards for university partnerships, visit the Higher Education section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The State News.
Live Poll
Should universities be held responsible for the political activities of their international academic partners?
