When Norway discovered oil in the North Sea, it created accounts for its citizens to share the wealth. Many oil-producing countries, including OPEC nations, have followed suit. This pooled capital is known as a sovereign wealth fund. These funds wield significant influence by investing in companies and sectors of the economy. Wealth managers for these funds typically buy government bonds.
Recently, Norway’s $2.3 trillion Government Pension Fund Global sent a letter to its Finance Ministry proposing a reduction in government bond holdings from 70 percent to 50 percent of its bond index. This move would impact U.S. Treasuries most heavily, with an estimated cut of roughly $80 billion from its $215 billion Treasury position. The fund is also considering increasing allocations to unlisted private assets. Norway’s parliament has already voted to review a 20-year ethical ban on investing in nuclear weapons-component makers such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Unlike most sovereign wealth funds, Norway discloses investments openly. However, transparency varies widely. The Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute’s Linaburg-Maduell Transparency Index scores funds on a scale from one to ten based on public disclosure. Norway and the UAE’s Mubadala score a perfect ten. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which has been active in American culture, scores only six.
The PIF’s American footprint spans Uber, Lucid, Live Nation, and a pending $500 million-plus stake in Endeavor—the talent agency representing Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Its gaming subsidiary, Savvy Games Group, holds stakes across the industry and is part of a consortium in the pending $55 billion acquisition of Electronic Arts, one of gaming’s largest deals. The Hollywood Reporter has described Saudi Arabia’s entertainment spending as an image-rehabilitation campaign following the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which U.S. intelligence attributed to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Yet unlike most U.S. investment funds, the PIF does not have to disclose its full holdings.
Qatar has provided American universities with roughly $7.7 billion since 1986 and over $1.1 billion in 2025 alone—more than any other country, including China—under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act. Cornell University received $2.3 billion, mostly for its Weill Cornell Medicine campus in Doha; researchers report that more than $100 million was rerouted through a university research station to avoid full disclosure.
Between February and December 2025, universities reported over $2 billion in foreign funding. Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, UC Berkeley, and the University of Michigan are now under federal investigation for inaccurate or untimely disclosures. Scholars are divided on the implications. Some call the raw dollar figures alarming evidence of influence-buying; Barnard College’s Alexander Cooley describes country-of-origin totals without context as “a very crude snapshot” that “invites politicization.”
Enormous pools of state capital, controlled by unelected fund managers answering to foreign governments, now sit inside American entertainment companies, research universities, and Treasury markets. Transparency for these funds depends entirely on each fund’s own choices and the disclosure laws of their home countries.
