NEW YORK: In just 60 words, the United States has pulled off a move described as an “own goal of historic proportions” and “superpower suicide” by commentators. On Wednesday (May 28), Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in a short statement that the US will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students”.
The announcement came as a surprise to many, not just the hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens enrolled at American universities left in shock about what their academic future will hold, but also staff at US embassies abroad who reportedly received no heads-up on the policy they will have to enforce.
The Trump administration’s crackdown on Chinese students in recent weeks has led to this moment. Mr Rubio’s announcement followed a May 19 letter to Harvard University from a congressional committee outlining “troubling partnerships and activities” with “foreign adversaries” and the May 22 termination of visas for all of Harvard’s international students.
But these mandates from the Trump administration misunderstand the cost-benefit analysis of Chinese students learning at American universities.
They are driven by a longstanding belief in conservative circles that China’s Communist Party uses a significant number of overseas Chinese students to influence perception of China and steal American intellectual property, as well as a broader Republican effort to reduce international students at elite colleges to make space for more Americans.
While the visa revocations are to include “those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party”, it is hard to define what this means in a country with single-party rule.
Thus far, there has been no clarification as to whether affected students would include registered party members, the majority of Chinese grade school students who joined the Young Pioneers or Communist Youth League (from as young as age six), or simply any of the millions of individuals who have family members who work in the party or in government.
Revoking the visas of Chinese students, and international students more broadly, will leave a gaping hole on the campuses they have made home and the industries they enter post-graduation. These students enrich their communities at the local level and allow for greater understanding between the world’s great power rivals at the macro scale.
Given the increasing tensions and the presence of the Great Firewall, American universities have remained as one of the only places citizens from both countries can freely engage.
This educational exchange also supports the American foreign policy goal of liberalising China: One 2020 study reported that Chinese students in the US were statistically “more politically liberal” and less likely to “fully embrace China’s current political system”. But experiencing anti-Chinese discrimination had the opposite effect.
Those not swayed by the more abstract argument of values should consider the economic fallout for the US too.
There will be major financial implications for American universities, as Chinese international students are far more likely to pay full tuition than their American counterparts.
In the 2023-2024 school year, China was the largest buyer of education-related services (which includes tuition and books),spending US$14.3 billion in 2023 according to Open Doors, an information resource on education funded by the US government. This tuition helps fund the financial aid programs for low- and middle-income Americans, especially at state schools and non-elite colleges which have smaller endowments.
The economy as a whole will also face the repercussions of policies restricting Chinese and other international students. During the 2023-2024 school year, international students working in the US contributed US$43.8 billion to the economy and supported over 378,000 jobs.
The tech world is expected to be hit particularly hard. An October 2021 study by the Institute for Defense Analyses determined that foreign-born workers account for 30 per cent of the US science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce.
This figure is even higher in critical fields such as artificial intelligence: Over 80 per cent of doctorate holders who completed AI-related dissertations at US universities from 2014 to 2019 joined the American workforce after graduation.
In April, the Institute for Progress think tank reported that most of America’s top AI companies’ founders were immigrants, with a majority hailing from India and China.
Losing out on the talent, innovation, and economic growth that Chinese graduates of American universities provide would undermine US tech advantages at a time when US-China AI competition is at an all-time high.
Little wonder then, that the decision to revoke Chinese visas has also been described as an example of the US “shooting ourselves in the foot”.
Even as China slams the “unreasonable” US decision, it can sit back and enjoy the loss of credibility of American institutions instead of retaliating against American holders of Chinese student visas.
During his November 2023 visit to the United States, Chinese President Xi Jinping said he wanted to invite 50,000 Americans to China on exchange and study abroad programmes in the next five years, a massive increase from the mere 700 Americans studying in the country at the time.
China will surely remain committed to recruiting American students to “burnish its international image”. By avoiding retribution, China may well master the diplomatic art (and internet meme) of “do nothing, win.”
Meghan Murphy is the Schwarzman Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, where she researches China and Southeast Asia.
Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.