Qatar, Campus Claims, and the Politics of Research

By Dearborn Blog Staff

Excerpt
A U.S. research outfit, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), has put Qatar at the center of a campaign tying foreign funding to campus antisemitism. Policymakers have repeated ISGAP’s numbers; critics say the evidence is thin and the messaging serves geopolitical aims. This article unpacks the claims, the documentation, the disputes, and what communities like Dearborn — and movements committed to human rights — should insist on: transparency, rigorous evidence, and policies that protect free speech while fighting real bigotry.

The debate over foreign influence on American campuses just acquired a new flashpoint: ISGAP, a New York–based research center, has pushed a series of reports and talking points linking Qatar’s university giving to spikes in campus antisemitism. That argument has landed in congressional hearings and news headlines, even as independent reviewers and former ISGAP affiliates question the data and methods behind the boldest claims. The result is a policy conversation where headlines have outpaced careful analysis — and where geopolitical rivalries shade how “research” is interpreted inside Washington.

“In institutions receiving such undocumented money: political campaigns to silence academics were more prevalent… Institutions that accept money from Middle Eastern donors, on average, had 300% more antisemitic incidents.”

What ISGAP claims, and how the argument moved into policy

ISGAP’s recent public push — including a high-profile testimony to Congress by its director, Dr. Charles Asher Small — frames the debate plainly: foreign governments (ISGAP spotlights Qatar) have used higher-education funding to push narratives, tilt campus discourse, and indirectly inflame antisemitism on U.S. campuses. ISGAP’s “Dark Money Nightmare” materials and its 2023 study The Corruption of the American Mind have been widely circulated among lawmakers and on Capitol Hill.
isgap.org

That push found a receptive audience. ISGAP figures were cited in congressional hearings and press coverage; members of Congress asked universities and federal agencies for inquiries into undisclosed foreign funding. At the same time, ISGAP’s framing fed into a larger Washington story — how foreign capital and soft power shape U.S. institutions — a topic the Quincy Institute also explored recently in a separate brief on Qatari influence.
Ways and Means

Where the evidence is strong — and where it is weak

There are several uncontroversial starting points:

Qatar is an influential global actor with substantial investments in education and media (e.g., Education City, Qatar Foundation) and a high diplomatic profile. Those facts are well-documented.
The Guardian

ISGAP’s work has been influential: its reports and testimony have been used by lawmakers and helped trigger hearings. That practical influence is clear.
dropsitenews.com

But the causal claims are fragile. ISGAP’s headline formulation — that Qatar funding caused a specific, quantified surge in antisemitic incidents on U.S. campuses — collapses under closer scrutiny for three reasons:

Correlation ≠ causation. ISGAP’s own materials note that their analyses are correlational and that they cannot definitively establish causal direction. That is important: an observed association may reflect selection effects, reporting differences, or other confounders.
isgap.org

Data and method disputes. Journalistic and scholarly critics point to methodological leaps in ISGAP’s public claims: figures lifted into testimony (for example, “300%” phrasing tied explicitly to Qatar in hearings) do not always match the underlying report’s careful (and limited) language. Independent reviewers and former ISGAP contributors say the organization sometimes amplifies suggestive associations into stronger policy claims than the evidence supports.
dropsitenews.com

Selective emphasis. ISGAP’s reports mix broader datasets (undisclosed foreign funding aggregated across many countries) with pointed references to Qatar; critics note that the lion’s share of many foreign-university funds remain in-country (Education City examples), not flowing freely into U.S. campus programming. That nuance matters for policy recommendations aimed at domestic institutions.
isgap.org

Put plainly: ISGAP has surfaced a question worthy of public attention — how foreign funds relate to campus life — but the chain from funding to antisemitic incidents is not proven by the published correlations alone.

Who funds ISGAP — and why that matters

Questions about research integrity rightly include the question: who pays for the research? Reporting in established outlets has documented that ISGAP has accepted significant Israeli government and other pro-Israel funding in the past; those ties have prompted critics to ask whether ISGAP’s agenda aligns with funders’ geopolitical interests. The Forward reported on a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar grant from Israel’s government to ISGAP; ISGAP has acknowledged some government grants while disputing the characterization of influence.
The Forward

Transparency about funding and governance is a legitimate public interest. It matters for how policymakers weigh testimony and how universities assess risks of foreign partnerships. But funding alone does not invalidate a finding — it should prompt careful methodological review and open data so independent researchers can confirm or rebut results.

The broader Washington context: politics, policy, and pressure

ISGAP’s campaign arrives in a charged context. A recent Quincy Institute brief documented how Qatar’s growth in Washington influence is real and multifaceted; that brief doesn’t claim Qatar is “behind” campus protests but does show Washington is the arena for soft-power competition. Meanwhile, political actors in Congress and the executive branch have incentives to amplify reports that justify tougher oversight of campus protests or foreign funding.
Quincy Institute

That convergence — advocacy groups offering sharp findings, lawmakers seeking policy levers, and media outlets eager for headlines — can make it feel as though a simple narrative has been established. It hasn’t. We should expect hearings, policy memos, and press releases; we should also insist on careful, replicable research before punitive measures are taken.

What universities, lawmakers, and communities should demand

Dearborn Blog’s perspective is rooted in two principles: (1) fight real antisemitism and all forms of hate vigorously; (2) resist guilt-by-association politics that conflate foreign policy disagreement with bigotry or justify rushed punishments. Translating those principles into policy means demanding:

Open data and reproducibility. If a study claims a major effect from foreign funding, the underlying datasets and code should be public so independent teams can test robustness. If ISGAP’s findings are to shape law or enforcement, they must be replicable.
isgap.org

Clear definitions and consistent reporting. Universities and federal agencies should align on definitions of “antisemitic incidents,” reporting thresholds, and whether increases reflect more incidents or better reporting. That nuance changes policy responses.
isgap.org

Targeted, evidence-based remedies. Where illicit or undisclosed foreign lobbying or illegal transfers exist, existing laws (including FARA and education disclosure rules) should be applied fairly. But proposals that would chill campus speech or criminalize legitimate academic exchange must be resisted.
The Guardian

Transparency from advocacy organizations. Groups testifying to Congress should disclose funding sources and conflicts. That includes think tanks and research centers that regularly brief lawmakers. Transparency does not disqualify an organization — it simply lets policymakers weigh evidence appropriately.
The Forward

The Dearborn test: human rights, not geopolitics, should set the standard

Dearborn stands for human rights, rigorous truth-seeking, and community safety. Our city is home to families whose loved ones live under siege in Gaza; that lived reality demands we confront hate and antisemitism honestly and protect free expression for people advocating for Palestinian rights. Policies that blur the distinction between legitimate political activism and antisemitic bigotry risk silencing Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and allies who are calling for an end to occupation and a just peace. That harms the very people Dearborn exists to protect.
Quincy Institute

At the same time, the fight against antisemitism is real and urgent. The right response is not political triage but disciplined inquiry: independent research, transparent data, and remedies that preserve civil liberties while addressing harassment and threats.

A modest checklist for moving forward

Independent audit: Congressional or academic commissions that vet major claims (e.g., the 300% language) with access to raw data.
isgap.org

Uniform reporting: A federal-university working group to harmonize what counts as an “incident” and how it is recorded.
isgap.org

Stronger disclosure: Universities should publish foreign funding tied to endowed programs and any conditions attached to gifts; narrow, enforceable penalties for undisclosed, unlawful foreign lobbying should be considered.
Quincy Institute

Protect campus speech: Reinforce policies distinguishing harassment from protected political expression; ensure enforcement does not disproportionately silence pro-Palestine activity.
Quincy Institute

“If research is to inform law, it must be transparent, replicable, and clear about limitations. Anything less risks weaponizing scholarship.”

Sources

Nick Cleveland-Stout, “An Israel-Funded Campaign to Link Qatar to Campus Antisemitism,” Drop Site, Sept. 15, 2025.
dropsitenews.com

ISGAP, The Corruption of the American Mind (report, Nov. 2023).
isgap.org

The Forward, “Antisemitism think tank ISGAP got grant from Israel,” Aug. 31, 2020.
The Forward

Quincy Institute, “Soft Power, Hard Influence: How Qatar Became a Giant in Washington,” Ben Freeman & Nick Cleveland-Stout, Sept. 8, 2025.
Quincy Institute

Testimony of Dr. Charles Asher Small, House Ways & Means / related hearing materials (ISGAP testimony PDF).
Ways and Means

ISGAP, “Dark Money Nightmare: How Qatar Bought the Ivy League,” ISGAP site (summary).
isgap.org

ISGAP — organization home page and “Follow the Money” project overview.
isgap.org

The Guardian, reporting on legal and advocacy complications tied to foreign advocacy (context on foreign lobbying and FARA), Aug. 2024.
The Guardian

Middle East Monitor, “Israel-funded campaign claims Qatar spreads antisemitism in US universities,” Sept. 16, 2025 (coverage of ISGAP campaign and criticisms).
Middle East Monitor

ISGAP and network critiques, public discussion on definitions and methodology (news and commentary aggregated in Wikipedia ISGAP entry).
Wikipedia

Editor’s note & disclaimer

This article synthesizes public reports, primary testimony, think-tank publications, and independent investigations cited above. Dearborn Blog advocates for human rights, evidence-based policy, and the protection of civil liberties — positions that inform our analysis. We do not offer legal or financial advice. Where claims in public testimony or reports are disputed, we have flagged those disputes and cited the relevant sources; readers are encouraged to review the original documents. Dearborn Blog is not responsible for any actions readers take based on this article.