Our universities help siphon off the top sliver of Chinese talent, which then benefits America.

Mike Gallagher, the former Republican congressman who spearheaded the creation of the House Select Committee on China in 2023, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Send Harvard’s Chinese Students Home.” He argues, “It makes no sense for the U.S. to be educating the scientific and leadership class of a future adversary.” President Trump deserves credit, he writes,

for addressing the corrupt and immoral links between universities like Harvard and the Chinese Communist Party. But the recent deals his administration has cut with Columbia, Brown and other schools don’t go far enough. These settlements consist of impressive but ultimately immaterial fines and vague promises to abide by current laws, which may not last through the next presidential term. There’s a better way: Drastically reduce the number of Chinese nationals enrolled at American universities, especially those studying technology.

Roughly 30% of Harvard’s student body is foreign. At Columbia, that share approaches 40%. America’s finest universities benefit from billions in government grants and tax breaks while admitting fewer Americans every year. Our elite universities need a change of mindset. They should make a priority of educating exceptional Americans and citizens of our partner nations—not our adversaries.

I happen to attend one of those “elite universities” — Stanford, perhaps the best school in the world for technology. As at Harvard and Columbia, a large share of Stanford’s students are international: 13 percent of undergraduates, 35 percent of graduate students. Many of them come from China. In fact, China is the second-largest source of foreign students at U.S. colleges, with its 277,000 students comprising a quarter of the total number. Gallagher would prefer far fewer.

I am under no illusion as to the national security threat China poses, especially through its many tools of soft influence. Financial dependence on Chinese students has corrupted many of our universities. Even more dangerous is the overlooked threat of espionage by Chinese students, especially when they work in high-level STEM departments. I’ve heard examples of Chinese students trying to collect sensitive information at Stanford. Of course, spies are a small fraction of all Chinese students in America, most of whom are here simply to become educated and advance their careers. But the few looking to steal information are very real, and they are impossible to weed out from the crowd.

Gallagher is right that the United States is under no moral obligation to issue limitless visas to Chinese students. And yes, it seems absurd for America to train up China’s most promising minds in science and technology, granting them years of access to the finest universities in the world, only for them to return to an authoritarian surveillance state that aims to displace American hegemony.

Yet even conceding all of those points, I disagree with Gallagher’s prescription of sending most Chinese students back home or not letting them into our universities in the first place. He looks at only one side of the ledger — the costs of American universities educating Chinese students — without considering how this arrangement is to our benefit but to China’s detriment.

The students we’d be keeping out would still go to college — and many of them would still receive advanced degrees in science and technology — only at less prestigious universities in China, which is already graduating far more STEM Ph.D.s than the United States. And it has the capacity to graduate many more if it needs to. So keeping Chinese students out of the United States may be more of a wash than Gallagher would hope.

But what if a great many Chinese students stayed in the United States after finishing their education? If that were the case, we could poach much of China’s best talent in STEM fields, train them in better universities than China has, and apply their skills to advancing America’s cutting-edge science and technology rather than China’s. We could hurt the CCP with brain drain and boost our own competitiveness at the same time. Well, I have some good news: That’s already happening.

Chinese students currently make up 16 percent of all STEM Ph.D. seekers in the United States. In artificial intelligence fields, their share is 27 percent. Of the 15,800 Chinese students that received science and engineering doctorates from U.S. schools from 2017 to 2019, 13,150 of them remained in the United States five years later. That’s a “stay rate” of 83 percent, the second-highest of any country of origin after India. Those Ph.D. holders who stay aren’t in the “scientific and leadership class” of China, as Gallagher alleges. They’re in the scientific and leadership class of America.

The 83 percent stay rate — which remains above 80 percent even after ten years — is especially impressive considering that the U.S. immigration system is tilted against skilled workers from China. The number of employment-based green cards that any one country can receive has been capped at 7 percent of the total for decades. As Chinese workers submit far more than 7 percent of green-card applications, the vast majority are put on wait lists. Therefore, no more than 9,800 people from China can typically be granted permanent residency in a year. If they want to keep working in the United States, those on the wait list often have to jump between temporary visas for many years. That so many advanced Chinese students choose to do so is a testament to their desire to live in America.

And why wouldn’t they want to live here, given the alternative? China is a terrible and oppressive country. America is wonderful and free. Even the Chinese government knows this, as it fears the further brain drain of its brightest citizens. As one CCP-aligned newspaper noticed, U.S. expansion of its employment-based immigration system “would pose a huge challenge for China.”

Whether we should let in more high-skilled workers from other countries is the subject of a larger immigration debate. But even if America did not adjust its green-card totals at all, expelling most Chinese students would nonetheless be a mistake. China would likely benefit from such a move, as it would close off the best avenue for top Chinese talent to escape to greener pastures. Sure, as long as Chinese students can flee to America, the CCP will take advantage through influence and espionage. On net, however, it would prefer to keep all its brightest citizens to itself. We shouldn’t let China have that luxury.