US House Report Warns China Exploits Federally Funded Research to Advance Military Technology
A recent investigative report by the US House Select Committee on China has raised serious concerns about the ways in which Chinese entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have benefited from American taxpayer-funded research collaborations. The findings, drawn from Department of Defense (DOD) research programs and collaborations, suggest that long-standing academic ties with Chinese institutions may inadvertently be strengthening Beijing’s military and technological capabilities, underscoring an urgent need for vigilance and reform in how the United States manages international research partnerships.
The House Select Committee’s report alleges that defense research projects funded by the US government have generated more than 1,400 publications involving collaborative work with Chinese partners, representing over $2.5 billion in research funding. More than half of those publications included direct cooperation with Chinese institutions linked to defense research and industrial bases, raising concerns that US-funded work in cutting-edge fields like cyber warfare, hypersonics, and advanced materials could indirectly contribute to China’s military prowess.
One of the most troubling aspects highlighted in the report is the lack of adequate safeguards within the DOD’s research funding apparatus to prevent such exploitation. The committee pointed to systemic policy gaps, including outdated risk assessment frameworks and insufficient screening of foreign research partners. Cases cited in the report included collaborations with institutions traditionally associated with Chinese military technology development, such as the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), which is known for its role in developing hypersonic weapons and missile systems.
Another example involved federally funded research on high-stakes decision-making under uncertainty, conducted jointly by researchers from US universities and Chinese institutions, including Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Beihang University. Beihang, in particular, is classified as one of China’s “Seven Sons of National Defence,” a group of academies with close ties to the PLA. The committee’s report suggests that even research presented as basic or academic can have direct applications in military contexts, especially when it is shared with or accessible to institutions affiliated with foreign defense sectors.
Beyond the DOD’s funding programs, similar concerns have been raised about research collaborations involving the Department of Energy (DOE). A separate congressional report found that Chinese partners have exploited DOE-funded scientific research, gaining access to sensitive nuclear technologies and innovations with both economic and national security applications. This investigation identified thousands of DOE-funded publications involving Chinese researchers, with roughly half linked to China’s military-industrial base. Critics warn that federal research without rigorous oversight risks enabling foreign adversaries to harness American innovation for strategic gain.
These developments underscore a broader structural issue in how the United States manages scientific collaboration with global partners. For decades, open research and academic cooperation have been hallmarks of American higher education and innovation policy. Scientists and students from around the world, including China, have participated in joint research projects at leading US universities. In many scientific fields, collaboration has driven breakthroughs in areas such as semiconductor technology, artificial intelligence, materials science, and energy. However, as national security and geopolitical competition have intensified, the risks of unfiltered access to US research outputs have come into sharper focus.
The debate over research collaboration has revealed a difficult balance between maintaining scientific openness and protecting American strategic advantages. On one hand, collaboration with international researchers has historically helped the United States maintain its position at the forefront of innovation. On the other hand, without proper safeguards, these partnerships can provide adversaries with unintended pathways to acquire knowledge that strengthens their own military and technological bases.
Importantly, the House Select Committee’s report does not advocate severing all academic ties with China. Rather, it encourages targeted reforms to ensure that taxpayer-funded research does not benefit foreign defense interests. Among the recommendations are stricter vetting of research partners, enhanced interagency coordination to assess risk, and mechanisms to prevent federal funds from flowing to collaborations with entities that pose national security concerns. These proposals aim to strike a balance: preserving the benefits of research cooperation while minimizing the risk of strategic exploitation.
The concerns raised in these reports reflect broader trends in US-China relations, which have shifted from cooperation toward strategic competition. Chinese technological advances, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and hypersonic weapons, have amplified fears that unrestricted collaboration could inadvertently accelerate China’s military modernization. At the same time, US lawmakers and policy experts emphasize that safeguarding research must be done in a way that does not unduly stifle scientific progress or harm legitimate academic exchange.
For the American public, these findings serve as a reminder that national security extends beyond the battlefield and into laboratories, universities, and research institutions. Taxpayer funds dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge are meant to strengthen the United States’ competitive edge—not to enrich or empower potential rivals. Ensuring that research collaborations are carefully monitored and aligned with American interests is crucial in an era where the pace of technological change directly influences global power dynamics.
In practical terms, heightened awareness and policy action could involve more rigorous screening of international research proposals, clearer guidelines for identifying high-risk collaborations, and enhanced transparency in how federal research dollars are awarded. These steps, while complex and requiring careful implementation, are necessary to protect the integrity of US research infrastructure and prevent the unintended transfer of knowledge that could undercut national security.
The House Select Committee’s report highlights an emerging frontier in the US-China strategic competition: the intersection of science, technology, and military capability. As China continues to invest heavily in its own defense-related research and expand its technological reach, the United States faces the dual challenge of fostering innovation at home while guarding against its misuse abroad. For Americans invested in the future of science and security, the message is clear: vigilance in research partnerships is not merely bureaucratic caution—it is a vital component of national defense strategy in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
