Why China and Qatar Are Funding Juilliard, Not Just Harvard
Three little words: Cultural influence matters
For decades, foreign money has flowed into America’s elite universities. These contributions aren’t really about benevolence or global cooperation. Instead, they’re about influence, control and, in some cases, direct subversion. Over the years, Harvard, Stanford and Cornell among others have received billions in foreign gifts, often from governments with interests misaligned with American values. China, Qatar and other states have learned that shaping minds abroad is as powerful as any military maneuver, if not more so.
This isn’t a new story. Foreign governments have long targeted universities, seeking to buy goodwill, the intellectual property of others and leverage over what’s taught in classrooms. But in recent years, a more curious institution has emerged among the top recipients of foreign funds: The Juilliard School.
In 2024 alone, Juilliard, the world-renowned performing arts conservatory, received nearly $120 million in foreign gifts and contracts—more than institutions known for cutting-edge research like Carnegie Mellon, Duke and MIT. For a school that produces Broadway actors and concert pianists, this figure is absolutely staggering. And it raises a vital question: Why Juilliard?
The Intellectual Influence Game
Before unpacking Juilliard’s significance, it’s worth examining the broader strategy at play. Foreign funding of American universities serves several purposes, especially for adversarial states.
First, there’s intellectual property theft. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has aggressively targeted American institutions to extract research and technological advancements. That’s the more obvious play. However, the true long-term goal reaches well beyond just science and technology; it also includes ideological influence.
Funding universities is one of the most effective ways for foreign governments to steer Western discourse. It’s not about one-off donations: It’s about shaping institutions from within over the long term via sustained financial support. This includes altering think tanks, research centers, faculty appointments and curricula so they serve curated narratives. Over time, scholarship shifts from genuine inquiry to subtle advocacy—all in an attempt to influence public opinion in the West.
The Chinese government openly acknowledges this strategy. In fact, it has been a well-known “secret” for many years. In 2011, in the Soft Power Evaluation Report, Men Honghua, then-deputy director at the Central Party School, outlined Beijing’s blueprint for cultural dominance. He believed traditional Chinese culture is being weaponized, used not just to promote heritage, but to project a carefully curated image of harmony and unity to the world, essentially disguising the regime’s authoritarian reality.
Image-making begins at home and then makes its way into Western institutions. For regimes synonymous with human rights violations and authoritarian rule, donations to elite American universities act as a reputational shield. A $50 million endowment to Harvard (or Juilliard) purchases credibility that no propaganda campaign can.
The Difference Between Science and Culture
While it may not be an easy task, funding for scientific research is somewhat traceable. When a foreign nation provides money to a research lab at MIT or Caltech, for example, the potential impact can be measured—patents, discoveries, technological breakthroughs, etc. Moreover, there are regulatory frameworks, security clearances and oversight committees that provide at least some level of accountability. If a Chinese-funded researcher steals sensitive data, it’s a national security concern that can be flagged, investigated and documented.
But how do you measure influence over a culture? How do you quantify the way an actor, playwright or filmmaker internalizes narratives shaped by foreign money? It’s a very challenging thing: Cultural manipulation is slow, subtle and almost invisible. No government agency tracks ideological drift inside a drama school, and no security protocol guards against the erosion of national identity through music, film and theatre.
China knows this all too well. According to the Global Soft Power Index 2025, China has recently surpassed the United Kingdom to reach second place worldwide in the index’s measurement of global influence in a variety of soft power sectors—from business and trade to culture and heritage and arts and entertainment. This growing influence is something China wants to maintain, which makes institutions like Juilliard more valuable—and more vulnerable—than ever. Art schools, film studios and music academies aren’t just playgrounds for creativity. They are, in many ways, battlegrounds. More specifically, they are battlegrounds for narrative control.
This may seem exaggerated, but it’s not: The stories we consume define our culture. They shape our myths, our national identity and ultimately, our political reality. Ten thousand policy papers can’t undo the damage of a single generation raised on a different set of ideals. The CCP isn’t just investing in steel, semiconductors and satellites anymore. It’s investing in something far more dangerous: the imagination.
Juilliard as a Pipeline to Hollywood
Juilliard has always been a feeder for Hollywood. The list of its alumni is a who’s who of the entertainment industry: Robin Williams, Viola Davis, Adam Driver, Jessica Chastain and countless others who have gone on to dominate and define American entertainment.
Hollywood, in turn, has already bowed down to Beijing. Chinese investment in the film industry has ensured that blockbuster movies steer clear of criticism of the CCP. Scripts are modified, characters are reimagined and entire scenes are removed to appease Chinese censors and avoid losing access to the ridiculously lucrative Chinese box office. “Top Gun: Maverick” famously removed a Taiwanese flag from Tom Cruise’s jacket. “Doctor Strange” swapped a Tibetan character for a Celtic one to avoid offending Xi Jinping and his fragile friends.
It’s clear, then, that Hollywood has shifted from an industry that once embraced free expression to one that willingly conforms to Beijing’s red lines.
This is where Juilliard comes in. If China can establish influence at a major training ground for future Hollywood stars, directors and playwrights, it can shape the industry long before projects even reach the scriptwriting stage. By funding programs, placing faculty and endowing scholarships, China ensures that tomorrow’s most influential artists are cultivated within an ideological framework favorable to Beijing. Prevention, as they say, is better than the cure.
This fact is not lost on Xi and other world leaders. Hollywood, after all, is not just an industry; it is, even today, an instrument of cultural hegemony. And in the modern era, Hollywood’s reach extends far beyond the silver screen. Streaming giants like Netflix, Hulu and Peacock have become the new arbiters of global storytelling. They shape perceptions on an unprecedented scale. Control the pipeline, and you control the product. Control the product, and you control the narratives that shape the minds of millions. This makes Juilliard more than a school. It makes it a strategic foothold in the long game of soft power, where the real battles are fought with storylines, not gunfire.
It is not surprising, then, that the Bank of China—a state-controlled institution with deep ties to the CCP—has played a major role in funding Juilliard’s global expansion. When Juilliard established a campus in Tianjin, China, in 2020, it was not merely a financial move; it was a strategic shift, placing one of America’s most prestigious arts institutions directly under CCP influence. Faculty appointments, student selections and course content must all pass through Chinese government oversight. It’s a stunning coup when you think about it, one that places a key Western cultural institution inside the machinery of an authoritarian regime—a regime that would love nothing more than to see the United States brought to its knees. Obviously, the implications extend beyond China. The actors, composers and playwrights who graduate from the school carry with them the subtle, and sometimes overt, pressures of the system that funded their education.
Qatar’s Play for Cultural Control
China isn’t the only foreign power buying influence in American culture. Qatar, a small but immensely wealthy Gulf state, has also made significant inroads into Hollywood and the arts. The nation has invested heavily in Elon Musk’s X and in studios like Miramax and Peter Chernin’s North Road.
Qatar has long understood that culture and power go hand in hand. Its investments are deliberate tools of influence. Whether through ownership of Paris Saint-Germain, quickly becoming a powerhouse in European soccer, hosting the 2022 World Cup or creating the Al Jazeera media empire, Qatar has used and continues to use culture to reshape its global image.
This strategy must be viewed through a broader lens. It’s part of Qatar’s National Vision 2030, a master plan launched in 2008 to transform the country into a dominant player on the international stage. And American media outlets, willingly or not, are part of that vision. For Qatar, U.S. media is essentially a vehicle for image laundering, a way to embed itself into Western discourse and present an image of progressive sophistication that masks its authoritarian realities. Viewed in this light, every cultural tie, every media foothold, is a form of strategic positioning—and the West, too often, plays right along.
Qatar has historically sought to control Middle Eastern narratives in academia. Its funding of American universities has resulted in Middle Eastern studies programs that downplay the Gulf state’s role in global terror financing and human rights abuses. But Juilliard represents a different but equally valuable opportunity—a chance to make a play for influence in the arts, ensuring that the country’s cultural and geopolitical interests are embedded in Western storytelling.
Recently, Juilliard established a close partnership with Compass International School in Qatar. Through this collaboration, Juilliard offers professional development for music, dance and drama teachers by integrating its curriculum specialists and workshops directly into the Qatari education system.
On the surface, this is an exchange of expertise. Going deeper, however, one could and possibly should view it as a soft-power alliance, where one of America’s most prestigious cultural institutions enhances Qatar’s global image under the banner of artistic excellence.
Once again, this view may seem a bit excessive. However, consider the implications when a Qatari-funded Juilliard graduate rises to become a prominent director, screenwriter or playwright. The narratives they create, the stories they tell and the perspectives they highlight will, whether intentionally or not, reflect the interests of their benefactors. Just as China has influenced Hollywood’s portrayal of its government, Qatar is positioning itself to do the same for the Middle East.
If China and Qatar can influence American culture from its very foundation, they don’t need to dictate foreign policy. They only need to shape the narratives that make certain policies inevitable. Beijing and Doha understand something many in Washington still do not: Culture is power. The most influential battles are fought not in boardrooms or laboratories, but on stage, in film and through the stories a society tells itself.
 | A guest post by
|