Ivory Towers and Pharma Profits: How Higher Education Fuels Big Pharma’s Bottom Line

As public outrage grows over the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a quieter but equally consequential dynamic demands scrutiny: the entanglement of higher education institutions with the pharmaceutical industry. Universities—especially those with medical schools and biomedical research centers—have become indispensable players in Big Pharma’s pipeline. While these partnerships often promise innovation and public benefit, they also raise troubling questions about academic independence, ethical boundaries, and the commodification of publicly funded science.

Medical Education: A Curriculum Under Influence

Medical schools are tasked with training future physicians in evidence-based care. Yet many institutions maintain financial ties with pharmaceutical companies that risk compromising the integrity of their curricula. Faculty members often receive consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from drug manufacturers. In some cases, industry-sponsored materials and lectures are integrated into coursework, subtly shaping how students understand disease treatment and drug efficacy.

This influence extends beyond the classroom. Continuing medical education (CME), a requirement for practicing physicians, is frequently funded by pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that this model incentivizes the promotion of branded drugs over generics or non-pharmaceutical interventions, reinforcing prescribing habits that benefit corporate interests more than patient outcomes.

University Research: Innovation or Outsourcing?

Academic research is a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development. Universities conduct early-stage investigations into disease mechanisms, drug targets, and therapeutic compounds—often funded by public grants. Pharmaceutical companies then step in to commercialize promising discoveries, assuming control over clinical trials, regulatory approval, and marketing.

While this division of labor can accelerate drug development, it also shifts the locus of control. Universities may prioritize research that aligns with industry interests, sidelining studies that lack commercial appeal. Moreover, corporate sponsors can exert influence over publication timelines, data interpretation, and intellectual property rights. The result is a research ecosystem where profit potential increasingly dictates scientific inquiry.

Case Studies: The University-Pharma Nexus in Action

Harvard University Harvard Medical School has faced scrutiny over the financial relationships between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies. A 2009 investigation by The New York Times revealed that more than 1,600 Harvard-affiliated physicians had financial ties to drug and medical device makers. The controversy sparked student protests and led to reforms requiring faculty to disclose industry ties and limiting pharma-funded materials in classrooms.

Harvard’s research enterprise is deeply intertwined with Big Pharma. Its partnership with Novartis in developing personalized cancer treatments—particularly CAR-T cell therapy—illustrates how academic science feeds into high-cost commercial therapies. While the treatment represents a breakthrough, its price tag (often exceeding $400,000 per patient) raises questions about the public’s return on investment.

Yale University Yale’s collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on PROTACs (proteolysis-targeting chimeras) showcases the university’s role in pioneering new drug technologies. Under the agreement, Yale and GSK formed a joint research team to advance PROTACs from lab concept to clinical candidate. GSK gained rights to use the technology across multiple therapeutic areas, while Yale stood to receive milestone payments and royalties.

Yale’s Center for Clinical Investigation (YCCI) saw an 850% increase in industry-sponsored trials between 2006 and 2019. To address concerns about equity, YCCI launched the Cultural Ambassador Program to diversify trial participation. While this initiative promotes inclusivity, it also serves the interests of pharmaceutical sponsors seeking broader demographic data for regulatory approval.

University of Bristol (UK) The University of Bristol has maintained a decade-long partnership with GSK, spanning vaccine development, childhood disease research, and oral health. GSK funds PhD studentships and undergraduate placements and collaborates on data integrity initiatives. While the partnership aims to improve global health outcomes, it also serves GSK’s need to secure early-stage innovation and talent.

Temple University Temple’s Moulder Center for Drug Discovery Research exemplifies the shift toward academic-led drug discovery. Pharmaceutical companies increasingly rely on centers like this to conduct early-stage research, reducing their own financial risk. As patents expire and blockbuster drugs lose exclusivity, pharma firms turn to universities to replenish their pipelines—often with taxpayer-funded science.

ETH Zurich (Switzerland) ETH Zurich has become a hub for synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry, attracting partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms. Researchers at ETH conduct foundational work that pharma companies later commercialize. This reflects a broader trend: the outsourcing of riskier, cost-intensive research to academic institutions, often without proportional public benefit.

The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers

Beyond research and education, elite university medical centers have long been implicated in systemic inequality and exploitation. As detailed in The Dark Legacy of Elite Medical Centers, these institutions have historically treated marginalized and low-income patients as expendable research subjects. The term “Medical Apartheid,” coined by Harriet Washington, captures the racial and class-based exploitation embedded in American medical history.

The disparities extend to labor conditions as well. Support staff—often immigrants and people of color—face low wages, poor working conditions, and job insecurity, despite being essential to hospital operations. Meanwhile, early-career researchers and postdocs, many from working-class backgrounds, endure long hours and precarious employment while driving the innovation that fuels Big Pharma’s profits.

Even diversity initiatives at these institutions often fall short, focusing on optics rather than structural reform. As the article argues, “The institutional focus on ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ often overlooks the more significant structural issues, such as the affordability of education, the class-based access to healthcare, and the economic barriers that continue to undermine the ability of disadvantaged individuals to receive quality care.”

Technology Transfer and Patents: The Profit Pipeline

Many universities have established technology transfer offices to manage the commercialization of academic discoveries. These offices negotiate licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, often securing royalties or equity stakes in exchange. While such arrangements can generate substantial revenue—especially for elite institutions—they also entangle universities in the profit-driven logic of the pharmaceutical market.

This entanglement has real-world consequences. Drugs developed with public funding and academic expertise are frequently priced out of reach for many patients. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows universities to patent federally funded research, was intended to spur innovation. But critics argue it has enabled the privatization of public science, with universities acting as gatekeepers to life-saving treatments.

Ethical Crossroads: Transparency and Reform

The growing influence of Big Pharma in higher education has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability. Some institutions have implemented conflict-of-interest policies, requiring faculty to disclose financial ties and limiting industry-sponsored events. Student-led movements have also emerged, demanding reforms to ensure that education and research serve the public good rather than corporate profit.

Yet systemic change remains elusive. The financial incentives are substantial, and the boundaries between academia and industry continue to blur. Without robust oversight and a recommitment to academic independence, universities risk becoming complicit in a system that prioritizes shareholder value over human health.

Rethinking the Role of Higher Ed and Medicine

Higher education institutions occupy a unique position in society—as centers of knowledge, innovation, and public trust. Their collaboration with Big Pharma is not inherently problematic, but it must be guided by ethical principles and a commitment to transparency. As the cost of healthcare continues to rise, universities must critically examine their role in the pharmaceutical ecosystem and ask whether their pursuit of profit is undermining their mission to serve the public.

The legacy of elite university medical centers is not just about innovation—it’s also about inequality. Until these institutions confront their role in perpetuating racial and class-based disparities, their contributions to public health will remain compromised.

Sources:

• The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers

• Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Pharma and Digital Innovation in China

• Harvard Business School Case Study: Novartis and Personalized Cancer Treatment

• Yale Law School: Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships

• GSK and Yale PROTAC Collaboration Press Release

• Yale Center for Clinical Investigation Case Study

• University of Bristol and GSK Case Study

• Pharmaphorum: Universities and Pharma Companies Need Each Other

• Chemical & Engineering News: The Great Pharmaceutical-Academic Merger

BRICS Universities on the Rise: Prestige, Power, and the Global Student Market

The BRICS alliance—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has emerged as both an economic and educational bloc. While the U.S., U.K., and Europe still dominate in global higher education prestige, the BRICS countries are investing billions to expand their universities’ reach, attract international students, and challenge Western dominance in research and rankings.

The Top BRICS Universities

Recent rankings—such as the “Three University Missions” framework compiled by the Association of Ranking Compilers (ARC)—consistently place Chinese and Russian universities at the top of the BRICS hierarchy.

• China: Peking University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) consistently place among the world’s top institutions.

• Russia: Lomonosov Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University lead, followed by Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and Novosibirsk State University.

• India: Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore and IITs (Bombay, Delhi, Madras) stand out in engineering and science.

• Brazil: The University of São Paulo (USP) and Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp) are Latin America’s strongest performers.

• South Africa: The University of Cape Town, University of the Witwatersrand, and Stellenbosch University remain the leading African universities.

China dominates numerically, with more than 200 universities represented in BRICS rankings—far ahead of Russia (161), India (93), Brazil (55), and South Africa (fewer than 20).

Beyond Rankings: What BRICS Universities Teach

Most leading BRICS universities are heavily STEM-oriented, training future engineers, medical professionals, and scientists. This is no accident. Just as Western universities in the so-called “Golden Years of Capitalism” prepared students for the industrial revolution, BRICS institutions are preparing for the next epoch—artificial intelligence, robotics, and 5G technologies.

In China and Russia, billionaires exist, but unlike in the United States, they do not dominate university governance. The state, particularly the Party in China, sets the agenda. Education here is not a marketplace of private donors and endowments, but a tool of statecraft and long-term economic planning.

This contrasts sharply with the United States, where higher education has been weaponized as a savior narrative against China—but where the system is riddled with debt, tuition inflation, and the casualization of faculty labor. In China, university education can be tuition-free, with no debt burdens, and designed to produce graduates with immediately usable skills.

International Students and Global Reach

One of the most striking shifts is in international student enrollment, where China has become a global hub. It now hosts the third-largest number of foreign students in the world, behind only the U.S. and U.K. Unlike in the West, international students in China disproportionately choose humanities programs—over 200,000 enrolled compared to fewer than 20,000 in the U.S.

Other BRICS nations are making slower progress. Russia has seen international enrollments grow, with Ural Federal University reporting a twelvefold increase in BRICS-country students since 2012. Brazil, India, and South Africa host far fewer foreign students but are experimenting with scholarship and exchange programs to grow.

Scholarship initiatives—especially linked to China’s Belt and Road Initiative—play a central role. In 2024, 200 Ethiopian students received full scholarships to study in Chinese universities. Institutions like Harbin Institute of Technology and Beijing Institute of Technology have become magnets for students from Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.

Extraction and Education

The rise of BRICS education cannot be separated from the global economy of extraction—extraction of minerals, extraction of information, extraction of labor, and even extraction through surveillance and coercion. The knowledge economy in BRICS nations increasingly aims to produce technologies and machines that can help, hurt, or kill—from medical robotics to military drones.

Humanities, once central to shaping citizens and culture, risk being sidelined into boutique programs or small schools, little more than hobbies for the privileged. The future of higher education, in BRICS and globally, is being reoriented toward what capitalism demands: technical skills to maintain permanent war, digital economies, and resource exploitation.

Institutional Networks and Alliances

Beyond rankings and enrollments, BRICS has established its own inter-university cooperation networks:

• BRICS Network University (BRICS-NU): A joint initiative promoting academic mobility, joint research, and shared degree programs. It is now expanding to BRICS+ countries such as Egypt, Iran, and the UAE.

• BRICS+ Universities Association (BUA): Formed in 2023 to boost student recruitment and global visibility of BRICS institutions.

These alliances are designed not only to strengthen BRICS solidarity but also to present an alternative to Western-dominated institutions like the Ivy League, Oxbridge, and the Russell Group.

Why BRICS Universities Matter

For students in the Global South, BRICS universities increasingly represent a viable alternative to costly degrees in the U.S. or U.K. The lower tuition, growing prestige, and geopolitical alignment with emerging powers make these schools attractive.

For governments, higher education has become a strategic tool of soft power. China in particular is using its universities to deepen ties with Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. Russia also leverages education as diplomacy, especially among post-Soviet states.

But the deeper issue is that education everywhere is now shaped by global capitalism, not just national priorities. If there is to be resistance—whether to debt peonage in the U.S. or to authoritarian technocracy in China—it will need to be international, much like labor struggles have had to cross borders.

Looking Ahead

With Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE joining BRICS+ in 2024–25, the bloc’s educational footprint will grow even larger. Universities in Cairo, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi could soon be ranked alongside Peking University and Lomonosov Moscow State.

Singapore, while not a BRICS member, remains an important comparison point: its National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) routinely rank above all but the very top Chinese universities.

As the 21st century unfolds, the global higher education order is no longer confined to the West. The BRICS countries—and their universities—are carving out a new, contested space in the knowledge economy. Whether this space leads to emancipation or further domination is an open question. For now, it looks less like the liberal dream of the university and more like the epoch of the robot, alongside permanent war.

---

Sources:

• ARC “Three University Missions” Rankings: brics-ratings.org

• TV BRICS: tvbrics.com

• QS BRICS Rankings 2016

• CEOWorld University Rankings (2018)

• Times Higher Education (THE) International Student Data

• BRICS Network University & BRICS+ Universities Association reports

---

Should Elites Get Bailed Out Again?

In 1929, when the stock market crashed, millions of Americans were plunged into unemployment, hunger, and despair. Yet the elites of Wall Street—whose reckless speculation fueled the disaster—often landed softly. By 1933, as the Great Depression deepened, nearly a quarter of the U.S. workforce was unemployed, thousands of banks had failed, and working families bore the brunt of the collapse. Ordinary people endured soup lines, Dust Bowl migration, and generational poverty. The government of Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually stepped in with reforms and safeguards like the FDIC and Glass-Steagall, but not before working-class Americans had paid the heaviest price.

Fast forward to 2008, when the global financial system once again teetered on collapse. This time, instead of letting the failures run their course, the U.S. government rushed to bail out Wall Street banks, auto manufacturers, and other corporate giants deemed “too big to fail.” Banks survived, CEOs kept their bonuses, and investors were shielded. Meanwhile, millions of working-class families lost their homes, jobs, and savings. Student loan borrowers, particularly those from working-class and minority backgrounds, never got a bailout. Adjunct faculty, contract workers, and gig laborers were left to navigate economic insecurity without systemic relief.

The pandemic brought the same story in a new form. Corporate bailouts, Federal Reserve interventions, and stimulus packages stabilized markets far more effectively than they stabilized households. Wall Street bounced back faster than Main Street. By 2021, the wealth of America’s billionaires had surged by more than $1.8 trillion, while ordinary workers struggled with eviction threats, childcare crises, and medical debt.

But the stakes are even higher today. U.S. elites are not only repeating past mistakes—they are doubling down on mass speculation across crypto, real estate, and equity markets. The rise and collapse of speculative cryptocurrencies revealed how wealth can be created and destroyed almost overnight, with everyday investors bearing the losses while venture capitalists and insiders cashed out early. Real estate speculation has driven housing prices beyond the reach of millions of working families, fueling homelessness and displacement. Equity markets, inflated by cheap debt and stock buybacks, have become disconnected from the real economy, rewarding executives while leaving workers behind.

This speculative frenzy is not just an economic issue—it is an environmental one. Fossil fuel corporations and their financiers continue to reap profits from industries that accelerate climate change, deforestation, and resource depletion. The destruction of ecosystems, the intensification of climate disasters, and the burden of environmental cleanup all fall disproportionately on working-class and marginalized communities. Yet when markets wobble, it is these same polluting elites who position themselves first in line for government protection.

The Federal Reserve has played a decisive role in this cycle. By keeping interest rates artificially low for years, it fueled debt-driven speculation in housing, equities, and corporate borrowing. When inflation spiked, the Fed shifted gears, raising rates at the fastest pace in decades. This brought pain to households through higher mortgage costs, rising credit card balances, and job insecurity—but banks and investment firms continued to receive lifelines through emergency lending facilities. The Fed’s interventions have too often prioritized elite stability over working-class survival.

Political leadership has compounded the problem. Under Donald Trump's first term, deregulation accelerated, with key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act rolled back in 2018. Banks gained greater leeway to take risks, and oversight of mid-sized institutions weakened—a decision that later contributed to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. Trump’s tax cuts overwhelmingly favored corporations and the wealthy, further concentrating wealth at the top while leaving the federal government less able to respond to future crises. In his second term, Trump and his allies signal that they would pressure the Fed to prioritize markets over workers and strip down remaining regulatory guardrails.

The logic of endless bailouts assumes that the survival of elites ensures the survival of the economy. But history proves otherwise. Whether in 1929, 2008, or 2020, the repeated subsidization of corporations and financial elites entrenches inequality, fuels reckless risk-taking, and leaves working families with the bill. The banks, crypto funds, and private equity firms that profit most during boom times rarely share their gains, yet they demand protection in busts.

And the problem is no longer just domestic—it is geopolitical. While U.S. elites depend on bailouts, rival powers are recalibrating. China is building alternative banking systems through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia, sanctioned by the West, is tightening its economic ties with China and other non-Western states. India and Brazil, key players in the BRICS bloc, are exploring alternatives to U.S. dollar dominance. If the U.S. continues to subsidize private failure with public money, it risks undermining its own global credibility and ceding economic leadership to rivals.

National security is directly tied to economic and environmental stability. A U.S. that repeatedly bails out elites while leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable erodes trust not only at home but abroad. Allies may question American leadership, while adversaries see opportunity in its fragility. If the U.S. financial system is perceived as permanently rigged—propping up elites while disempowering its workforce—it will accelerate the shift of global influence toward China, Russia, India, and Brazil.

Perhaps it’s time to let the system fail—not in the sense of mass suffering for ordinary people, but in the sense of refusing to cushion elites from the consequences of their own decisions. If banks gamble recklessly, let them face bankruptcy. If private equity firms strip-mine industries, let them collapse under their own weight. If universities chase speculative growth with predatory lending and overpriced credentials, let them answer for it in the courts of law and public opinion.

Failure, though painful, can also be cleansing. Without bailouts, institutions would be forced to reckon with structural flaws instead of papering them over. Alternatives could emerge: community-based credit unions, worker-owned cooperatives, public higher education funded for the public good rather than private profit, and serious investment in green energy and sustainable development.

The real question is not whether elites deserve another bailout. The real question is whether the United States can afford to keep subsidizing them while undermining its working class, its environment, and its national security. For too long, workers, students, and families have shouldered the costs of elite failure. The survival of the U.S. economy—and its place in the world—may depend not on saving elites, but on building something stronger and fairer in their place.

---

Sources:

• Congressional Budget Office, The 2008 Financial Crisis and Federal Response

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bank Failures During the Great Depression

• Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Wealth Surge During COVID-19

• Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy and Emergency Lending Facilities

• Brookings Institution, Bailouts and Moral Hazard

• BRICS Policy Center, Alternative Financial Governance Structures

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report

• National Association of Realtors, Housing Affordability Data

• Public Law 115-174, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (2018)

Does China Need US Universities for Its Elite Students?

For decades, U.S. universities have served as the finishing school for China’s elite. Children of Communist Party officials, wealthy businesspeople, and top scientists have often ended up at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or the Ivy League, polishing their English and acquiring the cultural capital necessary for global finance, diplomacy, and technology. At the same time, thousands of middle-class Chinese families have made enormous financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, betting on an American degree as a ticket to upward mobility.

But the question today is whether China still needs U.S. universities to educate its elite.

Shifting Global Power Dynamics

The rise of China’s own research universities has complicated the old narrative. Institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University now rank among the top in the world in science, engineering, and AI research. China produces more STEM graduates annually than any other country, and its funding for science and technology rivals that of the U.S. While U.S. universities still command prestige, their monopoly on global academic excellence has weakened.

Politics and National Security

Relations between Washington and Beijing have soured, and U.S. policymakers increasingly view Chinese students as potential security risks. Visa restrictions on STEM fields, FBI investigations into Chinese scholars, and rhetoric about intellectual property theft have chilled the academic exchange. For Chinese elites, the risks of having children in the U.S. — politically and reputationally — are higher than in the 1990s or 2000s.

Yet at the same time, political figures like Donald Trump have openly courted the financial benefits of Chinese enrollment. Trump has said that China can send 600,000 students to the United States — a number that would far exceed current levels — underscoring the contradiction between security anxieties and the revenue-driven priorities of American higher education.

Meanwhile, China has invested heavily in partnerships with Europe, Singapore, and even African nations to build alternative networks of elite education. For some families, sending a child to Oxford or ETH Zurich carries less geopolitical baggage than Harvard or MIT.

The Prestige Factor

Yet prestige is not easily replicated. An Ivy League degree still carries enormous weight, especially in global finance, law, and diplomacy. American universities remain unmatched in their ability to offer “soft power” — connections, cultural fluency, and credibility in international markets. For Chinese elites with ambitions beyond national borders, U.S. universities still provide networking opportunities that cannot be fully duplicated in Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen.

China’s Billionaires Build Private Universities to Challenge Stanford

In recent years, a number of China’s wealthiest business leaders have begun pouring billions into the creation of new private universities. Their ambitions are not modest: to build research institutions that can compete directly with the world’s most elite schools—Stanford, MIT, Oxford, and Harvard.

At first glance, such aspirations sound quixotic. Building a university brand that rivals Stanford typically takes a century of reputation, research, and networking. Yet, in China, examples already exist to show that rapid ascent is possible.

Westlake and Geely as Proof-of-Concept

Westlake University, founded in Hangzhou just seven years ago by leading biologists, is already outperforming global top 100 schools in specific fields, including the University of Sydney and the University of North Carolina. Its model—deep pockets, aggressive recruitment of top scientists, and a narrow focus on high-impact fields—demonstrates that prestige can be manufactured in years rather than generations.

Geely Automotive Group, meanwhile, established its own university to train engineers, feeding talent directly into one of the world’s largest car manufacturers. Today, Geely ranks among the ten biggest automakers worldwide, with its university playing a central role in workforce development.

A Stanford Model with Chinese Characteristics

The parallel to Stanford is intentional. Stanford thrived not only because of academic excellence but because it was embedded in Silicon Valley, benefiting from venture capital, defense contracts, and a culture of entrepreneurship. China’s industrialists are attempting something similar: building universities adjacent to industrial clusters and pairing them with massive R&D investments.

For billionaires, these institutions serve dual purposes: they act as innovation engines and as political insurance policies. In an era when Beijing has cracked down on tech moguls and capital excesses, aligning one’s fortune with education and national advancement offers a form of protection.

Political Constraints and Academic Freedom

The long-term question is whether these billionaire-founded institutions can sustain the openness and intellectual risk-taking that has characterized Stanford and MIT. While China’s system excels in applied sciences and technology, political controls may limit innovation in social sciences and fields that thrive on dissent, debate, and unconventional thinking.

Still, if the aim is dominance in biotech, engineering, AI, and materials science, the model may succeed. In fact, Westlake’s rapid climb already suggests mid-tier Western universities could soon find themselves leapfrogged by Chinese institutions less than a decade old.

A Changing Balance

So, does China need U.S. universities for its elite? The answer is complicated.

• Yes, for families who want global reach, especially in finance, technology entrepreneurship, and diplomacy. The cultural capital of an American education still matters.

• No, for families satisfied with domestic prestige and security. China’s own universities — both traditional public institutions and billionaire-backed ventures — increasingly provide sufficient training for leadership roles.

What is clear is that U.S. universities can no longer assume a steady flow of Chinese elite students. The market has shifted, the politics have hardened, and the prestige gap has narrowed. For American higher education, already struggling with enrollment cliffs and financial strain, this shift could have serious consequences.

---

Sources:

• Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report

• Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), “Chinese STEM Students in the U.S.”

• Times Higher Education World University Rankings

• South China Morning Post, Why China’s super-rich are spending billions to set up universities

• Guangming Daily, Hello, Westlake University

• CGTN, Westlake University established in Hangzhou

• Geely Automotive Group, Overview

• KE Press Global, China's Billionaires Are Building Universities to Drive Innovation and Stay Politically Favorable

Trump's War on Reality

The second Trump administration has unleashed a coordinated assault on reality itself—an effort that extends far beyond policy disagreements into the realm of deliberate gaslighting. Agency by agency, Trump’s lieutenants are reshaping facts, science, and language to consolidate power. Many of these figures, despite their populist rhetoric, come from elite universities, corporate boardrooms, or dynastic wealth. Their campaign is not just about dismantling government—it’s about erasing the ground truth that ordinary people rely on.

Department of State → Department of War

One of the starkest shifts has been renaming the State Department the “Department of War.” This rhetorical change signals the administration’s embrace of permanent conflict as strategy. Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate and former hedge fund executive, embodies the contradiction: Ivy League polish combined with cable-news bravado. Under his watch, diplomacy is downgraded, alliances undermined, and propaganda elevated to policy.

Department of Defense

The Pentagon has been retooled into a megaphone for Trump’s narrative that America is perpetually under siege. Despite the promise of “America First,” decisions consistently empower China and Russia by destabilizing traditional alliances. The irony: many of the architects of this policy cut their teeth at elite think tanks funded by the same defense contractors now profiting from chaos.

Department of Education

Trump’s appointees have doubled down on dismantling federal oversight, echoing the administration’s hostility to “woke indoctrination.” Yet the leaders spearheading this push often come from private prep schools and elite universities themselves. They know the value of credentialism for their own children, while stripping protections and opportunities from working families.

Department of Justice

Justice has been weaponized into a tool of disinformation. Elite law school alumni now run campaigns against “deep state” prosecutors, while simultaneously eroding safeguards against corruption. The result is a justice system where truth is malleable, determined not by evidence but by loyalty.

Department of Health and Human Services

Public health has been subsumed into culture war theatrics. Scientific consensus on climate, vaccines, and long-term health research is dismissed as partisan propaganda. Yet many of the leaders driving this narrative hail from institutions like Harvard and Stanford, where they once benefited from cutting-edge science, they now ridicule.

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has become the Environmental Pollution Agency, rolling back rules while gaslighting the public with claims of “cleaner air than ever.” Appointees often come directly from corporate law firms representing Big Oil and Big Coal, cloaking extractive capitalism in the language of freedom.

Department of Labor

Workers are told they are winning even as wages stagnate and union protections collapse. The elites orchestrating this rollback frequently hold MBAs from Wharton or Harvard Business School. They speak the language of “opportunity” while overseeing the erosion of worker rights and benefits.

Department of Homeland Security

Reality itself is policed here, where dissent is rebranded as domestic extremism. Elite operatives with ties to intelligence contractors enforce surveillance on ordinary Americans, while elite families enjoy immunity from scrutiny.

---

The Elite Architecture of Gaslighting

What unites these agencies is not just Trump’s directives, but the pedigree of the people carrying them out. Far from being the populist outsiders they claim to be, many hail from Ivy League schools, white-shoe law firms, or Fortune 500 boardrooms. They weaponize their privilege to convince the public that up is down, war is peace and lies are truth.

The war on reality is not a sideshow—it is the central project of this administration. For elites, it is a way to entrench their power. For the rest of us, it means living in a hall of mirrors where truth is constantly rewritten, and democracy itself hangs in the balance.

---

Sources

• New York Times, Trump’s Cabinet and Their Elite Connections

• Washington Post, How Trump Loyalists Are Reshaping Federal Agencies

• Politico, The Ivy League Populists of Trump’s Inner Circle

• ProPublica, Trump Administration’s Conflicts of Interest

• Brookings Institution, Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State

• Center for American Progress, Gaslighting the Public: Trump’s War on Facts

RFK Jr. Just Blew Up HHS—What It Means for America’s Health and Universities

RFK, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sparked a crisis in American public health and higher education through his aggressive campaign to dismantle the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Long a cornerstone of federal responsibility for health, welfare, and biomedical research, HHS employed more than 80,000 people and administered over $1.7 trillion annually before Kennedy’s interventions and influence over policy in 2025.

Historical Context: Eisenhower to Kennedy

In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched Reorganization Plan No. 1 to create the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), marking a pivotal moment in the federal government's role in public well-being. By elevating health, education, and social security programs to cabinet-level status, Eisenhower signaled a bold commitment to addressing the needs of a rapidly changing postwar America. 

The move consolidated scattered agencies under one umbrella, aiming to improve administrative efficiency and policy coordination. For higher education, this reorganization laid the groundwork for expanded federal involvement in student aid, institutional support, and educational research.

Vaccines became a formal part of the federal health mission under HEW in the 1950s and 1960s, as the U.S. government began to take a more active role in immunization programs. The turning point was the polio vaccine, licensed in 1955, which prompted widespread federal coordination to distribute and administer vaccines across the country.

President Lyndon B. Johnson transformed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into a driving force behind his ambitious Great Society agenda, using it to expand the federal government's role in education and public health. Under his leadership, HEW administered landmark programs like Medicare and Medicaid, revolutionizing access to healthcare for the elderly and poor. In higher education, Johnson championed the Higher Education Act of 1965, which HEW implemented to provide financial aid, strengthen colleges and universities, and open doors for underserved students. HEW became not just a bureaucratic body but a vehicle for social mobility, equity, and national progress—reflecting Johnson’s belief that education was the key to unlocking America’s full potential.

HHS itself was born from a major federal reorganization. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon proposed to consolidate the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into HHS.  Nixon’s move was intended to streamline operations, but it left the U.S. with a robust federal apparatus to manage national health challenges.

Under Jimmy Carter the HHS was formed in 1979, creating a centralized agency tasked with managing health policy, Medicare and Medicaid, public health research, and social programs. 

Decades later, Kennedy has argued that HHS is bloated, inefficient, and beholden to corporate and pharmaceutical interests. Through a series of public campaigns and policy interventions, he has influenced the administration to break up HHS, pushing programs down to states or folding them into smaller offices.

Fallout at the CDC

The changes at HHS have had immediate and dramatic consequences at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy publicly criticized the agency and its leadership, leading to the firing of CDC Director Dr. Marsha Reynolds and sparking a wave of resignations among senior officials. Experts warn that this leadership vacuum jeopardizes the U.S.’s ability to respond to disease outbreaks, maintain vaccination programs, and oversee critical public health surveillance. Internal memos reveal that morale at CDC is at historic lows, with key epidemiologists and lab directors leaving amid uncertainty over funding and administrative oversight.

Impacts on Higher Education and Research

Universities and medical schools are facing cascading consequences. HHS, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has long been the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, distributing over $45 billion annually. Institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Stanford rely heavily on these funds to support laboratories, graduate students, and clinical trials.

With NIH programs frozen or disrupted due to policy shifts, medical schools are seeing stalled research projects, disrupted residency programs, and shrinking training pipelines in critical specialties. Universities dependent on HHS-administered scholarships, loan repayments, and childcare subsidies for students and staff are struggling to fill the gaps. Without federal coordination, these programs risk becoming inconsistent across states, deepening inequality in education and healthcare access.

National Security and Global Competitiveness

Experts warn that the dismantling of HHS and the destabilization of CDC erode the nation’s capacity to respond to pandemics, bioterrorism, and other public health emergencies. The U.S.’s global leadership in biomedical research is at stake, with rival countries like China, India, and the EU increasingly capable of attracting talent and funding.

A Divisive Legacy

Supporters of Kennedy argue that decentralizing HHS empowers states and reduces bureaucratic overreach. Critics counter that the move threatens public health, medical education, and national security. Universities, research hospitals, and public health agencies are now navigating an uncertain future, with millions of Americans reliant on HHS programs feeling the immediate impact.

From Eisenhower's founding of HEW to Kennedy’s dismantling of HHS, the trajectory of federal health governance has shifted dramatically. The consequences of these decisions—on research, higher education, and public safety—will likely be felt for decades.

---

Sources

• National Institutes of Health. “NIH Budget and Historical Trends.” nih.gov

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “National Health Expenditure Data.” cms.gov

• Congressional Research Service. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Overview and Budget Trends. 2024.

• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). “Federal Support for Medical Education and Research.” aamc.org

• CDC Internal Communications (leaked memos, 2025)

• Higher Education Inquirer archives on federal research funding and policy shifts

The Academic Job Search Season: Stress, Survival, and Structural Problems

Every fall, the job search season kicks into high gear. For many academics—graduate students, contingent faculty, and even mid-career professionals—the process is exhausting. Updating résumés, scouring job boards, crafting cover letters, and collecting references has become a ritual of stress. Career guides and webinars offer tips, but they rarely address the structural issues that make academic job hunting such a fraught experience.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is marketing its own “September Collection” of advice: five free articles on managing applications, jump-starting an industry job search, applying outside academe, and coping with the increasingly common “tandem job search” faced by Ph.D. couples. On the surface, this content promises guidance and expert insight. Yet beneath the tips lies a deeper reality: academia’s labor market is in crisis.

The Disappearing Job Market

Managing job applications has become an overwhelming task because the number of secure academic positions has shrunk dramatically. Tenure-track lines are scarce, and adjunctification has normalized poverty wages and instability for tens of thousands of scholars. According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), three out of four faculty positions are now contingent—part-time, non-tenure-track, or adjunct. Many of these jobs pay less than minimum wage once preparation, grading, and commuting are factored in.

Meanwhile, universities continue to produce Ph.D.s at record levels, ensuring a glut of qualified applicants for every rare tenure-track posting. The advice to “manage your applications” often masks this reality: candidates are competing for scraps in a system that treats intellectual labor as disposable.

Beyond the Ivory Tower: Exits and Exile

Several of the Chronicle’s highlighted articles focus on leaving academia altogether. Job seekers are told how to “jump-start” industry careers or apply for jobs “outside of academe.” This is not just pragmatic advice—it reflects a broader shift.

Universities have become credential mills, producing far more advanced degree holders than the system can absorb. In 2022, the U.S. awarded over 55,000 doctoral degrees—yet fewer than 10,000 tenure-track positions opened nationwide. The so-called “two-body problem” for dual-academic couples has become a euphemism for professional exile: one or both partners must give up their academic careers or live apart indefinitely.

Debt and Desperation

The situation is compounded by the student debt crisis, which affects graduate students as well as undergraduates. Graduate borrowing accounts for 40% of all federal student loan debt, often exceeding $100,000 for Ph.D.s in the humanities and social sciences. Job seekers enter the market already burdened with debt, only to find themselves competing for contingent jobs that pay less than $25,000 a year.

In contrast, BRICS countries such as China are producing graduates without debt, often tuition-free, and with state-backed pathways into science, engineering, and medical professions. The U.S. system, by comparison, looks less like a ladder of opportunity and more like a trap of financial servitude.

The Role of Billionaires

Adding insult to injury, billionaire donors and corporate interests increasingly shape U.S. higher education. From the Koch network funding business and policy schools, to tech billionaires investing in “disruptive” ed-tech, private wealth dictates academic priorities. The result is a university system aligned with corporate needs—STEM fields for industry pipelines, financialized research, and administrative expansion—while the humanities and social sciences are starved of funding.

Job seekers are told to adapt to this market logic. Attend career fairs. Build transferable skills. Manage stress. But the real dysfunction lies in the fact that billionaires and trustees wield more power over universities than faculty and students combined.

From Individual Struggle to Collective Fight

The Chronicle’s Fall Virtual Career Fair, scheduled for October 15th, is framed as a solution: networking, résumé reviews, stress management. Yet these offerings treat the problem as one of individual navigation, not systemic collapse.

If there is to be resistance, it will not come from résumé workshops or LinkedIn polls about “workplace dysfunction.” It will come from collective struggle: graduate unions, adjunct organizing, debt strikes, and alliances across borders. Just as workers once had to fight internationally against the globalized forces of capital, academic workers will need to see their struggle as more than seasonal job stress.

The job search season is not just a stressful ritual—it is a symptom of a broken, financialized system. For many, the harsh truth is this: the problem isn’t your résumé. It’s the university itself.

---

Sources

• American Association of University Professors (AAUP), The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2022–23

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Doctor’s Degrees Conferred by Post-Secondary Institutions

• Brookings Institution, Graduate Student Debt: Dimensions and Policy Implications, 2020

• Coalition on the Academic Workforce, A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members, 2012

• The Chronicle of Higher Education, Career Resources and Virtual Fairs, 2024

• Inside Higher Ed, Adjuncts and the Academic Labor Crisis

Trumpenomics: The Emperor Has No Clothes

President Donald Trump calls himself a master of deals and a builder of wealth. But a closer look at his economic record shows otherwise. What passes as Trumpenomics is not a coherent strategy but a dangerous cocktail of trickle-down economics, tariffs, authoritarian force, and outright deception. The emperor struts confidently, yet his economic clothes are invisible.

Trickle-Down Economics with Tariffs

Trump’s policies leaned heavily on Arthur Laffer’s supply-side theories, promising that tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy would lift all boats. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, showering disproportionate benefits on the top 1%. The Congressional Budget Office found that by 2025, households making under $30,000 would actually see tax increases, while millionaires reaped permanent benefits.

At the same time, Trump imposed tariffs on China and other trade partners—despite claiming to be a free-market champion. Tariffs raised consumer prices at home, effectively acting as a hidden tax on working families. The Federal Reserve estimated that U.S. consumers and businesses bore nearly the full cost of Trump’s tariffs, with average households paying hundreds of dollars more each year for basic goods.

Demanding Tributes from Other Nations

Trump approached international trade less as economic policy and more as a tribute system. Nations that purchased U.S. arms, invested in Trump-friendly industries, or flattered his ego received preferential treatment. Those who did not were threatened with tariffs, sanctions, or military abandonment. His decision to reduce funding to NATO while deepening ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE reflected this transactional worldview.

Altering Economic Data and Scapegoating the Poor

Trump consistently attempted to alter or spin economic data. When unemployment spiked during COVID-19, his administration pressured agencies to downplay the crisis. In some cases, career economists reported being silenced or reassigned for refusing to misrepresent figures.

When numbers could not be manipulated, scapegoats were manufactured. Trump blamed immigrants, people of color, and the poor for economic stagnation, while targeting Medicaid recipients and the homeless as symbols of “decay.” Instead of addressing structural problems, his rhetoric diverted public anger downward, away from billionaires and corporations.

Lie, Cheat, Steal

Lawsuits and corruption have always been central to Trump’s business empire, and they carried over into his economic governance. From funneling taxpayer money into Trump-owned properties to bending trade policy for donors, his approach blurred the line between public service and private gain. The New York Times documented that Trump paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017, even as he claimed to be a champion of the American worker.

Fourth Generation Warfare, AI, and Taiwan

Trump’s economic worldview also bleeds into Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)—the mixing of political, economic, and psychological operations. His chaotic handling of AI development, threats over Taiwan, and erratic China policy destabilized global markets. Uncertainty became a feature, not a bug: allies and rivals alike never knew if Trump’s economic positions were bargaining tools, retaliations, or improvisations.

Authoritarianism at Home and Abroad

At home, Trumpenomics relied on force and intimidation. He threatened to deploy the National Guard against protesters, treating dissent as an economic threat to be neutralized. Abroad, he backed Netanyahu’s expansionist policies while cutting aid to Europe, effectively reshaping U.S. alliances around authoritarian partners willing to pay for loyalty.

Hostility Toward Higher Education

Trump also targeted higher education, cutting research funding, undermining student protections, and ridiculing universities as bastions of “elitism.” The move was both political and economic: by weakening critical institutions, he expanded the space for propaganda and disinformation to thrive.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

Beneath the spectacle, Trumpenomics have left the US more unequal, more indebted, and more divided. The federal deficit ballooned by nearly $7.8 trillion during his first term—before COVID-19 relief spending. Inequality widened: by 2020, the richest 1% controlled more than 30% of the nation’s wealth, while median household income gains evaporated. Tariffs have raised costs, tax cuts hollowed out revenues, and corruption flourished.

Trump’s economy was not built on strength but on illusion. Like the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s fable, Trump strutted in garments only his loyalists claimed to see. For everyone else, the truth was painfully visible: the emperor had no clothes.

---

Sources

• Congressional Budget Office, “The Distributional Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts” (2018)

• Federal Reserve Board, “Effects of Tariffs on U.S. Consumers” (2019)

• The New York Times, “Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance” (Sept. 27, 2020)

• David Cay Johnston, It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America (2018)

• Joseph Stiglitz, “Trump’s Economic Nonsense,” Project Syndicate (2019)

Trumpenomics in Action: The Government Buys Big Tech Shares—And What It Means for Higher Education

In a striking display of economic interventionism, the U.S. government has recently purchased equity stakes in semiconductor giants Intel and NVIDIA. At first glance, this seems to contradict the free-market rhetoric championed under Trumpenomics, which is ostensibly about small government, deregulation, and letting corporations thrive on their own. But a closer look reveals that this move is entirely consistent with the logic of Trump-era economic strategy: nationalist, crony-driven, and theatrically populist.

Trumpenomics has never been a pure ideology of laissez-faire capitalism. It is, at its core, crony capitalism in nationalist drag. By choosing winners and funneling government resources toward them, Trump-style economic policy reinforces corporate concentration under the guise of protecting American interests. The decision to buy Intel and NVIDIA shares fits squarely into this pattern. Both companies are critical to U.S. technological sovereignty—chips power everything from personal computers to defense systems. Intervening in their fortunes is sold as a matter of national security, echoing Trump’s tariffs and subsidies justified as shields against China.

The intervention also highlights the performative aspect of Trumpenomics. Trump has long treated stock market indices as proxies for success; prop up a handful of mega-corporations, and the market—and by extension, the administration—looks strong. Buying corporate shares is a literal, direct method of doing just that. Meanwhile, the populist veneer—“saving American jobs and technology”—masks the reality: these are already elite companies benefiting from government support, reinforcing the system’s entrenched inequalities.

Impact on Higher Education

University endowments, many of which invest heavily in large-cap tech stocks including Intel and NVIDIA, are now directly affected by government intervention. Equity purchases by the Treasury can inflate stock prices artificially, benefiting wealthy universities and private institutions while leaving smaller colleges and public universities—often reliant on tuition revenue or modest endowments—behind.

This intervention exacerbates existing disparities in higher education funding. Elite institutions with large endowments gain an additional layer of protection and growth, further concentrating wealth and influence in a sector already criticized for inequality. Meanwhile, public colleges and universities face stagnating resources, rising costs, and growing reliance on contingent labor. The result is a two-tier system: a well-funded elite benefiting from both government intervention and market gains, contrasted with a struggling majority of institutions.

Historically, government-directed industrial support is not new. Wartime production and Cold War defense contracts offered similar interventions, though usually without the claim of free-market purity. What distinguishes this Trumpenomics iteration is the deliberate mixing of nationalist rhetoric, corporate favoritism, and market spectacle—a pattern that has repeated across tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation, and now, equity purchases.

For Americans hoping for a consistent ideology, this move is yet another contradiction. Trumpenomics markets itself as free enterprise but practices selective state intervention when politically and economically expedient. In doing so, it crystallizes the fusion of wealth, power, and nationalist ideology into a system that protects the elite while leaving the majority—including many students and educators—to navigate underemployment, stagnating wages, and an educated underclass.

LSAT Suspended in China (Derek Newton*)

A friend of The Cheat Sheet sent us this important development — delivery of the LSAT, the Law School Admissions Test — has been suspended in China.

Go ahead, guess why.

According to the announcement from the test provider:

We have been increasingly concerned about organized efforts by individuals and companies in mainland China to promote test misconduct.

They continue:

While security is always a concern, these enterprises are becoming increasingly aggressive.

Yup.

I don’t mean to single out China. It’s one of a handful of countries in which test fraud is incredibly common and incredibly profitable. It’s so bad that any test delivered online in China is, in my view, compromised beyond validity.

To be clear as well, this is not a new problem (see Issue 232). In Issue 137, we noted that organized criminal gangs in India were giving up selling drugs because selling test fraud was more profitable.

More from the announcement:

This type of [cheating] activity is not limited to the LSAT; these enterprises purport to offer cheating services for virtually every standardized test.

True. Again — this is not a China problem or an LSAT problem. But this is a gigantic problem.

The announcement again:

After careful consideration, we have decided to take the additional step of suspending online testing in mainland China following the upcoming October international administration of the LSAT. We will be taking a variety of steps to enhance the security of the October LSAT. Because we do not currently offer in-person testing in China, the October test will be the last LSAT administration in mainland China until further notice.

And — round of applause.

This was not an easy decision. The LSAT in China must be a cash machine. Pulling it off the shelves involves more than just money, it raises real questions of fairness and access. So, seeing a company put the validity of their assessment and the sanctity of its scores ahead of money and ahead of awkward questions, is great.

It’s great.

If people keep stealing your lunch money, quit carrying your lunch money until you can figure out a better way. Like this:

We will continue to monitor and respond to this situation and will continue to evolve our security measures and employ a wide range of tools to protect the integrity of the test both in the U.S. and internationally.

Integrity is not cheap. But it is worth more than whatever it costs. Good for LSAC, the test provider.

And I know this is crazy, but every standardized test ought to hold themselves to the same standard. Give a secure, valid assessment or don’t give one at all. Colleges and universities, I’m looking at you.

Anyway, this is big news, and I do hope that others recognize the leadership this takes.

*This article first appeared at The Cheat Sheet.