Should young Americans study in China? Xi’s invitation reignites debate over risks and rewards

[WASHINGTON] When American student Josh Lipman began looking at where to spend a semester studying abroad, he considered Europe, Australia and parts of Asia, including Japan. China barely figured into the equation.

“I think that China just isn’t really on people’s radar. I can’t even remember what programmes we have there, to be honest,” the third-year public policy student at George Washington University told The Straits Times on campus one Friday afternoon.

Even if he were to consider China, the 20-year-old acknowledged reservations about surveillance and navigating a political system different from the one he is used to, although these were not necessarily deal breakers.

Much would depend on the nature and parameters of the programme, he said. Students might be more comfortable with a semester-long exchange organised through their American university than enrolling independently for a full degree at a Chinese university, he added.

“I could see a study abroad experience as being both a positive and a negative. Given the importance of US-China relations to national security, having first-hand experience would maybe be a boost to people,” he said.

His considerations reflect some of the questions surrounding Chinese President Xi Jinping’s invitation for 100,000 young Americans to visit China for study and exchanges over the next five years, announced during his recent state visit to Washington for a highly watched summit with US President Donald Trump.

The figure, double the 50,000 target that Xi set in 2023, has renewed debate among US-China watchers over whether sending the next generation of Americans to China to understand the country’s most consequential rival is both necessary and desirable.

Chinese news agency Xinhua said the 50,000 target was reached in 2026, ahead of schedule.

Some analysts have warned that the US risks losing a generation of officials, scholars and business leaders with the first-hand experience needed to understand China, as the number of Americans studying there has dwindled to a fraction of its pre-pandemic level.

Others, including Americans whose careers were shaped by years in China, question whether the benefits of being there now outweigh the risks students could face, with the more restrictive political environment and limits on academic freedom.

According to the Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange, 265,919 Chinese students were enrolled at US institutions in 2024 to 2025.

In contrast, only 1,749 American students received academic credit for studying abroad in China in 2023 to 2024, the latest figure available, down from more than 11,600 students in the periods of 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019.

The two figures are not directly comparable, as they measure different forms of student mobility, but they illustrate the sharp decline in the American flow to China.

The gulf between Chinese and American student flows has both political and structural roots, said Sun Chenghao, a senior fellow at Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy in Beijing.

American universities have long attracted Chinese students seeking degrees, research opportunities and international careers. For many Americans, studying in China has traditionally meant language training or a shorter exchange, he said.

The Covid-19 pandemic disrupted programmes, while geopolitical tensions, concerns about research access and safety, funding cuts and university restrictions have further discouraged Americans from going, he added.

Another deterrent identified in a 2026 US-China Education Trust report is a “widespread perception” that studying in China could hurt returning American students’ chances of obtaining security clearance for government work.

In recent years, some US government-backed programmes, such as the Fulbright programme, which once helped Americans develop expertise on China, have been suspended.

The programme’s first American scholar, Derk Bodde, arrived in China in 1948. He provided a first-hand record of the tumultuous end of the Chinese Civil War and the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

Other US government-funded initiatives aimed at building foreign-language and regional expertise – including the Boren Awards, Critical Language Scholarship and the National Security Language Initiative for Youth – have also suspended programmes in mainland China.

First-hand experience worth the risks?

In an article published by the Council on Foreign Relations on Sep 23, ahead of the Trump-Xi summit, American political scientist Rush Doshi and US-China Education Trust executive director Rosie Levine wrote that the US needs “a much deeper supply of China experts” to handle a fast-changing relationship.

They warned that a US that no longer trains people who can read Chinese primary sources, sit in Chinese classrooms or track policy implementation on the ground is “hardly more secure and is substantially less capable” of understanding and competing with China.

They also called on Washington and Beijing to revive exchange programmes such as Fulbright, with assurances at the highest level that participants would not face undue risks from Chinese security services.

Xi offered no such public assurances when he extended his invitation to 100,000 young Americans during his Washington visit.

Subsequent readouts from both the Chinese and American sides also did not indicate that safeguards for American students were discussed by the two leaders.

Isaac Stone Fish, founder and chief executive of Strategy Risks, which assesses companies’ exposure to China, told ST that while he acknowledged the value of such first-hand exposure, tighter information control and greater constraints on what people can say and do have changed the calculus for students considering China today.

“The single best thing that American universities can do is to tell students the truth about the risks of studying in China.”

“They should make clear that the space for freedom of speech is more constrained than it is in the US, so American students and their parents can make much more informed decisions,” said Fish, who lived in China from 2006 to 2011 and last visited in 2019.

Beijing has its own reasons for wanting more young Americans to visit.

Kevin Chen, an associate research fellow with the US Programme at NTU’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said efforts to engage American youth are “low-hanging fruit” for China.

This is especially so given comparatively warmer attitudes towards China among younger Americans and the popularity of visits to the country by American personalities such as streamer IShowSpeed in 2025, he added.

“In doing so, Beijing likely hopes to nurture a generation of Americans who are more sympathetic to Chinese viewpoints,” Chen said.

The question of where exchange ends and influence begins has generated controversy in the US.

In 1985, Xi, then 31, visited the small Iowa city of Muscatine as part of an agricultural delegation – a trip Beijing has repeatedly invoked as a symbol of the value of people-to-people ties between the two countries.

Nearly 40 years later, in 2024, more than 20 students from Muscatine High School became the first group of American students to visit China after Xi’s initial invitation to 50,000 young Americans. The school disclosed that the Chinese government fully funded the trip.

Months later, at least one Iowa state lawmaker called for future trips to be cancelled, arguing that they could be used for political propaganda, while defenders said the exchange was educational and transparent.

Chen said political and security concerns could be reduced by using American funding rather than relying on all-expenses-paid trips financed by Beijing.

For him, acknowledging Beijing’s soft power objectives does not negate the value of an exchange. Students can still gain insights into the lives of ordinary Chinese people even if they have to contend with restrictions on academic freedom or efforts to promote Chinese soft power, he said.

“There is still a net benefit for students to visit China to draw their own conclusions about the country,” he said.

Soft power or valuable exposure?

For George Washington University student Kristina Birbilis, 18, a semester in China could be an “awesome opportunity”, although she remains unsure about studying abroad so far from home.

“We talked about surveillance and data privacy briefly in class, which are valid concerns,” said the first-year history and political science student.

“But that’s also a personal choice you make, right? Like when we use TikTok on our phones, we click accept to waive our rights and give them our data, so it’s not a huge concern for me personally now,” she added.

Students’ willingness to accept such concerns, however, does not remove the need for safeguards, analysts said.

Tsinghua’s Sun said universities should agree in advance on academic expectations, access to materials, data protection and procedures for handling disputes. Students should also receive clear guidance on local laws, designated support contacts, emergency assistance and access to consular help.

“The goal should be informed participation, with credible safeguards and room for students to reach their own conclusions independently,” he said.

Digital exposure to another country while having little experience of its everyday life can leave young people with strongly held opinions based on narrow evidence, reinforced by algorithms, separate media environments and geopolitical narratives.

“In 10 or 20 years, these young people will be making decisions in government, business, universities and the media,” Sun said.

“Sustained exchanges and joint projects can help future leaders disagree more accurately, without assuming that every difference is irreconcilable.” THE STRAITS TIMES