Diplomat author Mercy Kuo regularly engages subject matter experts, policy practitioners, and strategic thinkers from around the world for their diverse perspectives on U.S. Asia policy. This conversation with Rosie Levine – Executive Director of the US-China Education Trust and member of the USCET Task Force Report “The Chinese Talent Challenge in America: Investing in a Deeper American Understanding of China” (2026) – is the 507th in “The Trans-Pacific View Insight Series.”
Why will the United States face a Chinese skills shortage over the next decade and what will the potential consequences be?
Through this project’s consultations with more than 50 organizations interested in generating U.S. expertise on China, we found that the number of Americans studying in China is plummeting and is unlikely to rebound without targeted intervention. This year, about 2,000 Americans are estimated to be studying in China, a fraction of the 11,000 American students studying in China in 2019. Since the pandemic, the number of Americans in China has hovered between a few hundred and a few thousand, and most are there for short-term visits rather than serious, long-term study.
Challenges come from both sides: China’s academic environment has become more restrictive and securitized, while the United States has reduced funding and limited engagement with China on campus. If these trends continue, when the current generation of Chinese workers retire from the sector, the majority of their successors will not have had direct, substantial exposure to China.
The potential consequences are enormous. China’s actions affect a wide range of U.S. interests, from geopolitics and security to trade and supply chains. Much can be learned about China through remote data collection, but without direct exposure, Americans risk missing new developments and could become overly reliant on misinformation or outdated assessments. This will lead to significant miscalculations in areas ranging from military signaling to trade negotiations in the years to come.
Identify the five key takeaways from the USCET report on the U.S. talent challenge in China.
Our key takeaways from the report are:
America needs a steady supply of Chinese experts with on-the-ground experience to meet tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities, but this pipeline is under serious constraints. Today, many emerging China specialists assume that time spent in the country will be seen as an obstacle to their future careers in government or the private sector.
In the United States, programs focused on China are under enormous pressure: federal funding has declined sharply, many long-standing programs have been closed or moved to Taiwan, and American institutions are encouraged to reduce their engagements with China. These developments leave few options for students and academics if they wish to pursue field research on the continent.
Despite the many challenges facing academic work in China, we have found that meaningful field research remains possible: there is much to learn about today’s China and is best understood through direct access. Research abroad and language study in Taiwan add immensely to our understanding but cannot replace direct exposure to understanding the country.
U.S. academic institutions that maintain educational outposts in China (joint campuses, academic centers, and study abroad programs) face increasing budgetary pressures and institutional uncertainty. Yet the extent to which these institutions serve as critical anchors for academic access and can serve as outposts for international researchers is underestimated.
Finally, we found that there is a huge need for information sharing, coordination and support for academic institutions and scholars who remain involved in China. New funding should help scholars deepen their understanding of China, and the new programs should nurture the next generation of students interested in the field. These efforts would reduce uncertainty and ensure a strong pipeline in the years to come.
Examine the impact of stricter US national security measures on China-US cooperation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
Our report finds that as U.S. campuses respond to concerns about STEM collaborations with China, new research security protocols are having a far greater impact than just STEM fields. In some cases, increased restrictions and scrutiny have been important interventions to stop technology leaks. However, these efforts to protect sensitive research increasingly affect a wide range of campus stakeholders, including historians, political scientists, researchers low risk scientist the fields, scholars of Chinese heritage, and in some cases, even study abroad programs in China. As academic collaboration becomes more difficult, fewer researchers are willing to jump through bureaucratic hoops to obtain approvals, even when their research poses little risk.
An important takeaway from our work is that STEM research and social sciences and humanities research should not be managed in the same way. The report recommends increased coordination among university leaders, compliance officers, faculty, and government agencies to develop security protocols that protect U.S. research without creating unnecessary barriers to academic work or travel to China.
Explain the correlation between American competitiveness and Chinese expertise.
“Knowledge is power,” after all, and that remains true today: the more the United States understands China, the more accurate, up-to-date, and responsive our assessments of the country will be. It is extremely difficult to compete with – or manage relations with – a country you do not understand.
Our report argues that Chinese expertise should be considered a national resource. Since the early 1970s, Americans with on-the-ground experience in China have played critical roles in the U.S. government, business, media, academia, and bilateral relations. Some of these individuals play a direct role in bilateral diplomacy and have used this knowledge to manage military or security crises. Others are using their understanding of China to drive innovation and inform financial decisions aimed at boosting U.S. growth. An accurate assessment of China is essential to U.S. competitiveness in a wide range of areas.
What are the report’s recommendations for training and educating future U.S. experts in China?
Based on our assessment of the challenges, our report recommends the following steps:
The U.S. government should publicly recognize the need to maintain American expertise on contemporary China and demonstrate support for educational exchanges, with senior officials reassuring students and administrators that China studies serves the national interest. U.S. government agencies should make it clear that in-country training does not disqualify students from future government jobs, including providing more detailed guidance on the security clearance process.
Policymakers and academic leaders should support existing U.S. academic centers in China—recognizing them as unique platforms for hosting Americans with on-the-ground access—and encourage those with the capacity to expand their role by welcoming U.S. scholars and researchers to the field.
China should provide a welcoming environment that promotes access for American researchers.
Higher education leaders should work with policymakers to develop more targeted policies to manage U.S.-China academic connectivity on campus, which would allow non-sensitive academic work to continue.
Federal funding and opportunities for Chinese-specific language and research – including U.S. government-funded PRC study programs – should be restored, and a new U.S. fellowship program for American scholars in China should be created.