Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

Across the United States, far-right networks have quietly built their presence on college campuses—not through mass rallies or overt displays, but through a loose coalition of digital activists and in-person operatives known as Groypers.

The Groypers, inspired by the alt-right, white-nationalist, and “America First” ecosystems of the late 2010s and early 2020s, represent a new iteration of extremist youth organizing: savvy, antagonistic, and optimized for a social-media landscape where attention is currency and disruption is strategy.

Their influence is not as visible as Turning Point USA tabling events or Young America’s Foundation speaker tours. Instead, the Groyper presence grows through infiltration, targeted disruption, and online radicalization that spills into student life. As economic anxiety and political distrust intensify, campuses have become fertile ground for this phenomenon.

What Are Groypers?
Groypers are part of a decentralized far-right subculture aligned with white-nationalist figures and Christian nationalist ideologues. They are not a formal organization; rather, they are a network of memetic identities, recognizable by:
the cartoon Groyper frog mascot (an offshoot of the Pepe image ecosystem),
online anonymity/alter-egos,
ideological tropes centered on nativism, Christian nationalism, and “white identity,”
disruptive tactics aimed at embarrassing mainstream conservatives and intimidating progressive students.

Their overall goal is to pull young conservatives—and disaffected apolitical students—toward a more extreme worldview.

Why Campuses Are Targets
1. Transitional Vulnerability
First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.

2. Political Vacuum
As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.

3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
Groypers thrive in places like:

Discord
Telegram
X/Twitter
anonymous forums
niche livestream communities

Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.

4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.

The strategy is division, not dialogue.

Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
1. Ambush Questioning
At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.

2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:

brigade attacks,
doxxing attempts,
edited clips taken out of context,
swarm-like intimidation.

3. Misery Farming
Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.

4. Grooming and Recruitment
They seek out students who feel:
lonely
unsupported
resentful
ideologically adrift
economically anxious

A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.

The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
Universities often misread these actors as:
“just trolls,”
“rowdy conservatives,”
“free speech activists.”

They’re not.

Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
they lack digital literacy,
they fear backlash from right-wing media,
they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.

Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.

How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
neoliberal hollowing of the university
growing distrust in democratic institutions
political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
the decline of genuine civic education
surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization

Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.

What Higher Education Must Do Now
Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.

1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.

2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.

3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.

4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
“Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.

5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.

Seeing the Threat Clearly
Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.

The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.

Erika Kirk’s Advice on Motherhood Raises Questions About Liberty University’s Online Degrees and Conservative Messaging

Erika Kirk, widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has become the center of a storm after advising young women not to delay motherhood in pursuit of career ambitions. Her comments, made on The Megyn Kelly Show, were framed as a warning against prioritizing education or professional advancement over family. Yet Kirk herself pursued multiple degrees—including a Juris Master from Liberty University’s online program—before stepping into her current role as CEO of Turning Point USA.

The controversy exposes a deeper tension between higher education, conservative cultural messaging, and the lived experiences of public figures. Liberty University, where Kirk earned her advanced degree, has built one of the largest online education platforms in the country. It markets these programs as rigorous, flexible, and empowering for working adults, particularly women who balance professional and family responsibilities. Kirk’s own enrollment and completion of the program demonstrate the value of such opportunities. But her public advice now discourages younger women from following a similar path, raising questions about whether her message undermines the very educational model she benefited from.

Critics argue that Kirk’s remarks reflect a broader pattern in conservative circles: leaders who leverage higher education and professional networks to build influence, while prescribing traditional gender roles to the broader public. This double standard is particularly visible in faith-based institutions like Liberty, which promote academic achievement while simultaneously reinforcing cultural narratives that prioritize early marriage and motherhood. The contradiction is stark—Kirk’s advanced degree bolstered her credibility, yet she now suggests that women should subordinate similar ambitions to family life.

For higher education observers, the issue is not simply Kirk’s personal hypocrisy but the institutional dynamics at play. Liberty University profits from the demand for online graduate education, especially among women seeking advancement. At the same time, its alumni and affiliated figures often promote messages that diminish the importance of those very opportunities. This tension raises critical questions: How does Liberty reconcile its role as a provider of advanced education with the cultural messaging of its graduates? Does the institution benefit from women’s enrollment while tolerating rhetoric that discourages others from pursuing the same path?

The Erika Kirk controversy is more than a cultural flashpoint. It is a case study in how higher education intersects with politics, religion, and gender expectations. It highlights the contradictions between institutional marketing and alumni messaging, and it underscores the need for scrutiny of how universities—especially those with strong ideological identities—shape and are shaped by the public figures they produce.

Sources:

• Yahoo News – Erika Kirk Under Fire Over Pregnancy Remark

• MSN – Erika Kirk Dubbed a Hypocrite Over Pregnancy Advice

• AOL – Erika Kirk Tells Megyn Kelly She Prayed She Was Pregnant

• Mediaite – Erika Kirk Reveals She Was Praying to God She Was Pregnant

• Factually – Erika Kirk’s Education Background

How U.S. Higher Education Helped Create Nick Fuentes

In the aftermath of each new outrage involving Nick Fuentes, pundits scramble to explain how a 20-something suburban Catholic kid became one of the most influential white supremacists in America. Many insist Fuentes is an anomaly, a glitch, a fringe figure who somehow slipped through the cracks of democracy and decency. But this narrative is both comforting and false.

Fuentes is not an anomaly. He is the logical product of the systems that shaped him—especially American higher education.

While institutions obsess over rankings, fundraising, and branding campaigns, they have quietly abandoned entire generations of young people to debt, alienation, status anxiety, and a digital culture that preys on male insecurity. In this vacuum, extremist networks thrive, incubating figures like Fuentes long before the public notices.

HEI warned about this trend years ago. Since 2016, the publication tracked the rise of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA, noting how TPUSA used campus culture wars to radicalize disaffected young men. HEI saw that for-profit-style marketing, donor-driven politics, and relentless culture-war agitation were creating an ecosystem where reactionaries could build both influence and profit. Fuentes did not arise outside that ecosystem—he evolved from it, even as he later turned on Kirk as insufficiently extreme.

What fuels this pipeline? A generation of young men raised on the promise of meritocracy but delivered a reality of spiraling costs, precarious futures, and institutional betrayal. Many arrive at college campuses burdened by debt, anxious about their place in an unforgiving economy, and deeply online. They bear the psychological bruises of a culture that has replaced community with competition and replaced meaning with metrics.

This is also the demographic most vulnerable to incel ideology, a misogynistic worldview built around grievance, rejection, humiliation, and resentment. Incel communities overlap heavily with the digital spaces where Fuentes built his early audience. The mix is combustible: sexually frustrated young men who feel mocked by mainstream culture, priced out of adulthood, and invisible to institutions that once guided them. The result is a fusion of white nationalism, male resentment, Christian nationalism, ironic fascism, and livestream entertainment—perfectly tailored to a generation raised on Twitch and YouTube.

And yet the higher-education establishment insisted for years that white supremacists were primarily rural “rednecks”—poor, uneducated, easily dismissed. This stereotype blinded journalists, academics, and administrators to the reality developing right in front of them. Higher Education Inquirer knew better because we corresponded for years with Peter Simi, one of the country’s leading scholars of extremism. Simi’s research demonstrated clearly that white supremacists were not confined to rural backwaters. They were suburban, middle-class, sometimes college-educated, often tech-savvy, and deeply embedded in mainstream institutions.

Simi’s work showed that white supremacist movements have always thrived among people with something to lose, people who feel their status slipping. They recruit in fraternities, gaming communities, campus political groups, military circles, and online spaces where young men spend their most lonely hours. They build identities around grievance and belonging—needs that universities once helped students navigate but now too often ignore.

This is the world that produced Nick Fuentes.

Fuentes entered higher education during a moment of fragmentation and distrust. Tuition was skyrocketing. Campuses were polarizing. Students were increasingly treated as revenue streams rather than whole human beings. Administrators were more focused on donor relations and culture-war optics than on the psychological welfare of their students. And universities outsourced so many vital functions—to police, to lobbyists, to tech platforms—that they ceded responsibility for the very students they claimed to educate.

Into that void stepped extremist influencers who offered simple answers to complex problems, validation for resentment, and a community that cared—if only in the performative, transactional sense of internet politics.

The tragedy is not simply that Fuentes emerged. The tragedy is that the conditions to generate many more like him remain firmly in place.

American higher education created the environment: hyper-competition, abandonment of the humanities, the collapse of community, the normalization of precarity, and a relentless emphasis on personal failure over systemic dysfunction. It created the audience: anxious, isolated, indebted young men looking for meaning. And it created the blind spot: a refusal to take extremism seriously until it reaches mainstream visibility.

Fuentes is not a glitch in the system. He is the system’s mirror held up to itself.

Unless universities confront their complicity in this radicalization pipeline—economically, culturally, and psychologically—the next Nick Fuentes is already in a dorm room somewhere, streaming at 2 a.m., finding thousands of followers who feel just as betrayed as he does.

---

Sources

Angela Nagle, Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right (2017).
Peter Simi & Robert Futrell, American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate (2010, updated 2015).
Kathleen Belew, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America (2018).
Joan Donovan & danah boyd, “Stop the Presses? The Crisis of Misinformation” (Harvard Kennedy School).
Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right (2020).
Michael Kimmel, Healing from Hate: How Young Men Get Into—and Out of—Violent Extremism (2018).
Whitney Phillips, “The Oxygen of Amplification: Better Practices for Reporting on Extremists.”
Brian Hughes & Cynthia Miller-Idriss, “Youth Radicalization in Digital Spaces.”
David Futrelle, We Hunted the Mammoth archive on incel ideology.
Higher Education Inquirer (2016–2024 coverage of TPUSA, Charlie Kirk, and campus extremism).

Charlie Kirk, Milo Yiannopoulos, and the Weaponization of Campus Free Speech

In the last decade, Charlie Kirk and Milo Yiannopoulos emerged as two of the most controversial figures on U.S. campuses. Though different in demeanor, both tapped into a potent formula: using universities as battlegrounds in the culture wars, staging spectacles that blurred the line between political activism, media provocation, and profit.

Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editor, built his American notoriety through his 2016–2017 campus speaking tour. His brand was openly flamboyant, camp, and cruel—delighting his fans with ridicule of feminists, Muslims, and LGBTQ activists while enraging opponents. The height of his career came at the University of California, Berkeley, in February 2017, when protests against his scheduled speech escalated into property damage, a police crackdown, and national media coverage. Berkeley—the symbolic birthplace of the 1960s Free Speech Movement—was suddenly cast as the stage for a right-wing provocation about free expression.

But the fallout from Yiannopoulos’s personal life quickly undercut his momentum. Video surfaced of him appearing to condone sexual relationships between older men and boys, remarks he later attempted to reframe as jokes or personal history. The scandal cost him a book deal with Simon & Schuster, led to his resignation from Breitbart, and triggered a cascade of canceled appearances. His sexual provocations, once a source of his appeal, became his undoing in mainstream conservative circles.

Charlie Kirk, meanwhile, chose a steadier path. With Turning Point USA, founded in 2012, he avoided Yiannopoulos’s sexual flamboyance and leaned instead on organization-building, donor cultivation, and a veneer of respectability. TPUSA planted chapters across hundreds of campuses, launched the Professor Watchlist, and turned campus protests into proof of “leftist intolerance.” If Yiannopoulos was the shock jock of campus conservatism, Kirk became its institution-builder.

Yet the connection between them remains. Both recognized the utility of outrage—that protests and cancellations could be reframed as censorship, and that universities could be cast as ideological enemies. Berkeley provided the prototype: a riot in defense of inclusivity was spun into evidence of liberal suppression, fueling conservative mobilization and fundraising.

---

Donors, Dark Money, and the Business of Outrage

Neither Yiannopoulos nor Kirk could have sustained their visibility without deep-pocketed benefactors and ideological patrons.

Yiannopoulos’s rise was closely tied to the Mercer family, the billionaire backers of Breitbart News who also helped fund Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Their patronage gave him a platform at Breitbart and the resources to stage his “Dangerous Faggot Tour.” When the pedophilia scandal erupted, the Mercers swiftly cut ties, leaving him adrift without institutional protection.

Kirk’s Turning Point USA followed a different trajectory, courting a wide network of wealthy conservative donors. According to IRS filings and investigative reports, TPUSA has received millions from the Koch network, Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner’s family, and donors linked to the DeVos family. By 2020, TPUSA’s budget topped $30 million annually, making it a financial juggernaut in the campus culture wars. The group’s lavish conferences, slick marketing, and constant media presence depended heavily on this donor pipeline.

These financial networks reveal that both Kirk and Yiannopoulos were never simply “grassroots” activists. They were, in fact, products of elite funding streams, crafted and sustained by billionaire patrons seeking cultural leverage. For universities, that means student protests were never just about clashing ideologies—they were also responses to well-financed operations designed to destabilize higher education as an institution and mobilize a generation of voters.

---

Kirk’s later alignment with Christian nationalism and the MAGA movement extended his influence far beyond campus politics. His assassination in September 2025 has already created a martyrdom narrative for the right, just as Yiannopoulos’s clashes at Berkeley created symbolic victories, even as his personal scandals consumed him.

For higher education, the legacies of Kirk and Yiannopoulos are instructive. Universities remain prime targets for political entrepreneurs who thrive on outrage, whether their methods are flamboyant and sexualized or organizational and ideological. The question for higher education is not whether these figures will return—others surely will—but whether institutions can resist being drawn, again and again, into spectacles that erode the very idea of the university as a space for learning and dialogue.

---

Sources

• Wikipedia contributors. “Charlie Kirk.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

• Wikipedia contributors. “Milo Yiannopoulos.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

• Reuters. “What to know about the case against Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk.” September 16, 2025. Link

• The Guardian. “Milo Yiannopoulos: the shallow actor with a bad guy act.” February 21, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-rise-and-fall-shallow-actor-bad-guy-hate-speech

• CNN. “Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart after comments on pedophilia.” February 21, 2017. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart

• NPR. “Violent Protests Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event At UC Berkeley.” February 2, 2017. https://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/512956833/violent-protests-shut-down-milo-yiannopoulos-event-at-uc-berkeley

• OpenSecrets. “Turning Point USA.” https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/turning-point-usa/summary?id=D000064422

• New York Times. “The Mercers and the Rise of the Alt-Right.” March 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/mercers.html

The Emotional Energy of Martyrdom: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, offers a stark illustration of how violent acts against movement leaders can reconfigure political energy on U.S. campuses. Kirk was the leader of Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action (formerly Students for Trump), and Turning Point Faith. He was also the creator of the Professor Watchlist and the School Board Watchlist. 

Far from diminishing conservative student mobilization, Kirk’s death appears to have amplified it—at least in the short term. Randall Collins’ sociology of interaction ritual chains and Eric Hoffer’s classic analysis of mass movements provide a useful lens for understanding both the surge and the likely limits of this moment.

Collins’ Emotional Energy Framework Applied to Kirk’s Death

Collins identifies four outcomes of successful ritual gatherings: group solidarity, emotional energy, sacred symbols, and moral righteousness. In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, conservative students and evangelical leaders have experienced all four in compressed, amplified form.

Pastors quickly declared Kirk a “Christian martyr.” Rob McCoy invoked biblical precedent, while Jackson Lahmeyer described the murder as “spiritual in nature and an attack on the very institution of the church.” This religious framing elevates Kirk from activist to sacred symbol.

The immediate response has been extraordinary. Turning Point USA claims more than 32,000 requests for new chapters in the 48 hours following his death. Collins would interpret this as emotional energy seeking new ritual outlets. In this sense, Kirk’s martyrdom has become not just a grievance but a generator of collective action.

The memorial scheduled for September 21 at State Farm Stadium—with capacity for more than 60,000 and featuring Donald Trump—is set to be the largest ritual gathering in the history of conservative student politics. Collins would predict this to be a high-intensity moment of “collective effervescence,” the kind of event that extends emotional energy for months if not years.

Hoffer’s Mass Movement Dynamics and Conservative Student Mobilization

Hoffer’s The True Believer provides a complementary angle. He argued that mass movements thrive on frustration, doctrine, and the presence of either a leader or a transcendent cause. Kirk’s assassination intensified frustration while transforming him into a more powerful symbolic figure than he was in life.

Student conservatives now have all three: grievance (left-wing violence), a sacred cause (free speech framed as religious duty), and a heroic narrative (following a martyred leader). In Hoffer’s words, martyrdom provides both “grievance and transcendent meaning.”

The shift from Kirk as a living leader to Kirk as martyr reflects Hoffer’s principle of substitutability. Loyalty has already migrated from the man himself to the mythology of his sacrifice. College Republicans chairman William Donahue compared the killing to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, framing it as a watershed for the movement.

Sustainability and the Ritual Problem

The paradox is that Kirk’s most important contribution—the high-energy confrontational rituals of his “Prove Me Wrong” campus debates—cannot be replicated without him. These events generated viral spectacle, solidified conservative identity, and created sacred moments of confrontation. They were, in Collins’ terms, engines of emotional energy.

The September 21 memorial may provide a one-time boost, but Collins emphasizes that emotional energy must be renewed through repeated rituals. Without Kirk’s charisma and willingness to create confrontational spaces, conservative students risk energy dissipation. Already some students report greater enthusiasm for activism, while others express fear of being targeted themselves.

The dilemma is clear: the rituals that generated the most energy (public confrontations) are the very ones most likely to invite violence. This tension may limit the sustainability of the movement’s current surge.

The Profit Motive: Martyrdom as Marketplace

Beyond the sociology of solidarity lies a material reality: martyrdom is also a business model. Conservative organizations are already converting Kirk’s death into a revenue stream. Within hours of the assassination, Turning Point USA launched fundraising appeals invoking Kirk’s “sacrifice,” while conservative merchandisers began selling commemorative t-shirts, hats, and wristbands emblazoned with slogans like “Martyr for Freedom” and “Charlie Lives.”

Publishing houses are reportedly fast-tracking hagiographic biographies, while streaming platforms are negotiating for documentaries. Memorial events, livestreams, and “Martyrdom Tours” are being packaged as both spiritual rituals and ticketed spectacles. Kirk’s death, in other words, is generating not only emotional energy but also financial capital.

This profit motive raises questions about the sincerity of the rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s martyrdom. While Collins and Hoffer help explain the emotional pull, the commodification of grief ensures that the “sacred symbol” is also a lucrative brand. Conservative student organizing may thus be sustained less by spontaneous devotion than by a well-financed industry of grievance, merchandise, and media spectacle.

Indicators to Watch

Several markers will reveal whether Kirk’s martyrdom produces lasting transformation or burns out in ritual dissipation:

• Memorial impact: Attendance and intensity at the September 21 gathering will test whether Kirk’s death can generate lasting solidarity.

• Chapter formation: The real test of Turning Point USA’s 32,000 claims will be functioning chapters in six months.

• Leadership succession: Hoffer reminds us that movements need charismatic leaders. At present, Trump appears to be monopolizing the emotional energy, raising doubts about the rise of new student leaders.

• Counter-mobilization: Collins’ conflict theory suggests left-wing backlash could shape whether conservative students double down or retreat.

The Probable Trajectory

For the next 6–18 months, conservative student mobilization is likely to grow. The movement now has the grievance, sacred symbolism, and transcendent narrative that both Collins and Hoffer identify as powerful motivators.

But sustaining this surge will be difficult without Kirk’s unique talent for generating high-energy campus rituals. Unless new leaders emerge who can replicate or reimagine those ritual forms, the emotional energy of martyrdom may eventually dissipate.

At the same time, the financial infrastructure now growing around Kirk’s death suggests the movement has a fallback strategy: keep the martyrdom alive as long as it remains profitable. In this way, Kirk’s assassination may prove to be not just a sociological event but also a business opportunity—one that reveals the convergence of politics, religion, and profit in contemporary conservative student life.

Higher Education Inquirer covered Charlie Kirk and Turning Point for nearly a decade

For almost a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer investigated right wing influencer Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point Empire.  Kirk was groomed by Bill Montgomery (a surrogate for Richard Nixon in Florida for Nixon's Reelection Campaign) and Steve Bannon when Bannon was at Breitbart. Kirk quickly learned the dirty tricks of the Nixon-Reagan era and the dog whistles of white supremacy and misogyny. He also quickly gained funding from right wing billionaire Foster Freiss. 

In mid-2016, we communicated our concerns with Michael Vasquez at Politico, who later moved on to the Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE).  CHE later reported that Kirk created a plan to win student elections using outside (illegal) money. We also contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League who both listed TPUSA as a hate group. 

For nearly a decade and a half, Kirk and Turning Point USA incited violence on campus and on social media through its playbook of dirty tricks, racist and sexist agitation, and surveillance.  That's why we warned folks not to engage with TPUSA before this semester started. 

As we reported in 2018:

Charlie Kirk, with no evidence whatsoever, alleged that a less qualified woman of color took his slot at West Point.

Turning Point USA allegedly stole records from the Young Americans for Liberty.

Kirk's news blog, Turning Point USA News (previously known as Hypeline) mentioned Black Lives Matter more than 100 times, and stated that BLM was a domestic terror group.

A writer in the Hypeline blog also referred to the classic Why the Caged Bird Sings as pornography.

Turning Point USA used "affirmative action bake sales" on campus to show the injustice of privileges given to black and brown people.

Kirk opposed "safe spaces" on campus for people of color and the LQBTQ community.

TPUSA scheduled a "conservative coming out day" at the same time as the National Coming Out day.

TPUSA invited alt-right white supremacist Ivan Throne to speak at their regional conference in Denver.

Charlie Kirk publicly claimed that white privilege was "a myth and a lie."

TPUSA members in Illinois, North Carolina, and possibly Nebraska were linked to the Western chauvinist, anti-feminist group, Proud Boys.

Right Wing Influencer Charlie Kirk Killed at Utah Valley University

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University today.  The killer was not immediately caught. The Higher Education Inquirer has been covering Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA, since 2016.  Kirk has been a polarizing force in the United States, particularly on US college campuses. HEI hopes this event will not lead to further violence. Since its inception, we have urged for peace and nonviolence.   

Climate Denial and Conservative Amnesia: A Letter to Charlie Kirk and TPUSA

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have built an empire of outrage—rallying young conservatives on college campuses, feeding them culture war talking points, and mocking science in the name of “free thinking.” At the top of their hit list? Climate change. According to TPUSA, man-made global warming is a hoax, a leftist ploy to expand government, or simply not worth worrying about. But this isn’t rebellion—it’s willful ignorance. And worse, it’s a betrayal of the conservative legacy of environmental stewardship.

Let’s be clear: man-made climate change is real. It is measurable, observable, and already having devastating consequences across the planet. The science is not debatable. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth’s average surface temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century—largely driven by carbon emissions from human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which aggregates peer-reviewed science from around the world, states unequivocally that “human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”

If Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were interested in truth, they wouldn’t be spreading climate denial. They’d be listening to the 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists who confirm that this warming is caused by humans. They’d look to the Department of Defense, which recognizes climate change as a national security threat. They’d pay attention to farmers losing crops to drought, families displaced by floods and wildfires, and millions of people suffering through record-breaking heat.

In 2023, Phoenix experienced 31 straight days above 110°F. In 2024, ocean temperatures reached the highest levels ever recorded, accelerating coral bleaching and threatening global fisheries. Canadian wildfires covered U.S. cities in toxic smoke. Coastal towns face rising seas. These are not “natural cycles.” They are the direct result of burning coal, oil, and gas at unsustainable levels—driven by short-term greed and fossil fuel lobbyists.

And that brings us to a painful irony. TPUSA claims to speak for the working class, for rural Americans, and for future generations. But these are exactly the people being hit first and hardest by climate change. Farmers in Texas and Kansas are watching their yields collapse. Gulf Coast communities are being battered by stronger hurricanes. Urban neighborhoods with little tree cover and poor infrastructure are turning into deadly heat islands. Denying climate change doesn’t protect these people—it abandons them.

But perhaps the worst betrayal is ideological. TPUSA calls itself conservative. Yet real conservatism means conserving what matters—our land, our water, our air, and our future. And in this regard, the Republican Party once led the way.

It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who pioneered American conservation. He created national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. He didn’t call environmental protection socialism—he called it patriotism.

It was Republican Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. He founded the Environmental Protection Agency, understanding that pollution was not just bad for nature—it was bad for people and for capitalism itself.

Even Ronald Reagan, whose presidency is often associated with deregulation, signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. The result? The ozone layer began to heal—one of the greatest environmental successes in human history.

More recently, conservative leaders like Bob Inglis, Carlos Curbelo, Larry Hogan, and Susan Collins have advocated for carbon pricing, clean energy investments, and bipartisan climate action. Groups like RepublicEn, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and the American Conservation Coalition are working to reintroduce common-sense environmentalism to the Republican movement. These are not radicals. They are conservatives who understand that freedom means nothing without a livable planet.

Young Republicans increasingly agree. Polls show that Gen Z conservatives are far more likely than older Republicans to support climate action. They’ve grown up in a world of extreme weather, mass extinction, and economic uncertainty. They know the cost of inaction. They see through the oil-funded lies.

So what exactly is TPUSA conserving? Not the environment. Not scientific integrity. Not the truth. They are conserving ignorance—and protecting the profits of ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the very fossil fuel billionaires who knew the risks of climate change in the 1970s and chose to deceive the public anyway. (See: Harvard University’s 2023 study on Exxon’s internal climate models.)

If TPUSA is serious about freedom, they must realize that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. There is no free market on a burning planet. There is no liberty when wildfires choke your air, when hurricanes destroy your home, or when heatwaves kill your grandparents.

We challenge Charlie Kirk and TPUSA not to “own the libs,” but to own the truth. Talk to climate scientists. Visit frontline communities. Debate conservatives like Bob Inglis who actually care about the world they’re leaving behind. Break the echo chamber. Lead with courage instead of trolling for clicks.

The earth does not care about your ideology. It cares about physics. And physics is winning.

Sources:

NASA – Climate Change Evidence and Causes: https://climate.nasa.gov
NOAA – Global Climate Reports: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2023: https://www.ipcc.ch
Harvard – Exxon’s Early Climate Models, Science, Jan 2023
U.S. Department of Defense – Climate Risk Analysis, 2022: https://www.defense.gov
Pew Research – Gen Z Republicans and Climate Change, 2023
RepublicEn – https://www.republicEn.org
American Conservation Coalition – https://www.acc.eco
Montreal Protocol overview – United Nations Environment Programme

The truth is not left or right. It is grounded in science, history, and conscience. Conservatives once led on environmental protection. They still can—if they’re brave enough to face the facts.

Turning Point USA and the Authoritarian Personality

Turning Point USA (TPUSA), founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, has become a major player in campus conservatism. The organization claims over 3,000 high school and college chapters across the United States and has raised millions of dollars from right-leaning donors. TPUSA’s presence on campuses and its media footprint have drawn attention from students, faculty, and researchers, especially for its combative style and use of public shaming tactics.

This article explores TPUSA's growth and influence in the context of social psychology—specifically, the theory of the authoritarian personality—and its relevance to U.S. campus politics.

---

Organizational Growth and Influence

According to TPUSA’s own data and reporting by The Chronicle of Higher Education and The New York Times, the group had more than 250 paid staffers and a $55 million budget in 2021. Its funding has come from major conservative foundations including DonorsTrust, the Bradley Foundation, and the Ed Uihlein Family Foundation. TPUSA also hosts national events like “AmericaFest,” which attract thousands of young conservatives.

TPUSA’s "Professor Watchlist," launched in 2016, lists faculty members it accuses of promoting “leftist propaganda.” Critics, including the American Association of University Professors, argue that this practice endangers academic freedom and targets scholars without due process.

---

The Authoritarian Personality Framework

The authoritarian personality theory originated with The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a study led by Theodor Adorno and his colleagues at UC Berkeley. The study introduced the F-scale (Fascism scale), which measured tendencies toward submission to authority, aggression against perceived outsiders, and conformity to traditional norms.

Subsequent research has built on and modified this theory. Political scientists like Stanley Feldman and Karen Stenner have connected authoritarian predispositions with support for strong leaders, intolerance of ambiguity, and punitive attitudes toward perceived rule-breakers. In recent decades, these traits have been linked to political alignment, especially in times of perceived threat or instability.

---

TPUSA Messaging and Authoritarian Traits

TPUSA frequently uses binary language in its public messaging—casting issues as good versus evil, and labeling opponents as “radical” or “anti-American.” At national events, founder Charlie Kirk has encouraged confrontational activism. At the 2022 Student Action Summit, he urged attendees to "go on offense" against what he called the "woke mob."

In content analysis of TPUSA social media, researchers at the University of North Carolina (2021) noted recurring themes of authority, nationalism, and threat framing—elements often associated with authoritarian communication. TPUSA’s criticism of universities, professors, and diversity programs reflects a view of institutions as hostile or illegitimate, which research suggests can align with authoritarian worldviews.

While not all TPUSA supporters endorse authoritarian values, survey research (such as the Voter Study Group’s 2018 and 2020 datasets) shows that authoritarian-leaning respondents are more likely to approve of restricting campus speech, favor military-style leadership, and distrust pluralistic norms. These attitudes can map closely onto TPUSA’s policy priorities and media strategy.

---

Implications for Higher Education

TPUSA’s presence on campuses has prompted reactions from faculty senates and student governments, with some institutions debating whether the group’s tactics fall within acceptable norms of political discourse. Several chapters have been suspended or disciplined by universities for alleged harassment or violations of student conduct codes.

Data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) show that campus conflicts over political speech have increased in the last decade, with cases involving TPUSA contributing to this trend.

The broader issue is not whether conservative students should organize, but how political movements use fear, threat narratives, and loyalty to authority to shape behavior. Researchers at the University of Toronto and New York University (Stenner & Haidt, 2017) have found that political polarization increases when authoritarian cues are amplified—especially when groups frame disagreement as dangerous.

---

Tactics of Fascism

Turning Point USA represents a well-funded and expanding force in campus politics. While it promotes conservative positions, its tactics—particularly public shaming, threat-based messaging, and hierarchical appeals—reflect elements associated with the authoritarian personality as described in decades of psychological and political research.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to examine the role of political organizations in shaping student discourse, and the broader consequences for democratic institutions, academic inquiry, and civil society.

---

Sources

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Brothers.

Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press.

Stenner, K. & Haidt, J. (2017). “Authoritarianism Is Not a Momentary Madness.” In Can It Happen Here?, edited by Cass Sunstein. Dey Street Books.

Feldman, S. (2003). “Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. “Turning Point USA’s Rapid Campus Expansion.” October 2021.

The New York Times. “How Turning Point USA Built a Youth Army.” December 2020.

UNC Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life. “Authoritarian Messaging and Youth Political Mobilization.” 2021.

Voter Study Group. Democracy Fund Survey Reports, 2018–2020.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). “Professor Watchlist Threatens Academic Freedom.” Statement, 2016.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). Campus Free Speech Reports, 2010–2023.

Was Turning Point USA infiltrated by a Russian informant?

In the murky world of political nonprofits and student organizations, foreign influence is often subtle—but sometimes the signs are hard to ignore. Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the high-profile conservative nonprofit mobilizing students across the United States, has come under our scrutiny for potential infiltration by individuals with Kremlin connections. 

Central to this story is Alexandra Hollenbeck, a former student journalist and TPUSA associate whose activities raise questions about Russian influence in American student politics.  While much of the information has been scrubbed from the Internet, we still hold considerable evidence.  

Hollenbeck’s Background and Unusual Affiliations

Alexandra Hollenbeck has contributed to conservative publications such as The Post Millennial, Washington Examiner, and TurningPoint.News. Her work includes coverage of pro-Trump narratives, student activism, and international affairs. 

In a 2017 article for TPUSA’s Student Action Summit, Hollenbeck reported on former Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka’s speech, highlighting his devotion to combating jihadists and supporting Trump’s agenda. Gorka’s talk drew historical parallels, beginning with the story of Paul, a 15-year-old boy walking through post-war Budapest, emphasizing that “liberty is as precious as it is fragile.”

Hollenbeck’s prominence within TPUSA circles became more conspicuous after she was photographed at the Kremlin during a pro-Putin rally—a rare and striking connection for a U.S.-based political journalist. 

Attempts at Federal Oversight and Silence

Inquiries to the FBI regarding Hollenbeck’s activities yielded no response.  TPUSA also never responded to our questions.  

Why TPUSA Could Be Vulnerable

TPUSA operates extensive student networks and organizes high-profile events that attract donors, media, and political figures. While the organization is influential within U.S. conservative circles, its internal vetting procedures for affiliates and journalists are less transparent. This opacity creates opportunities for individuals to gain access to sensitive networks, messaging, and potentially student data.

Hollenbeck’s activities—her Kremlin presence, her coverage of pro-Trump events, and her involvement in TPUSA events—illustrate why external scrutiny is warranted. While no definitive proof of espionage or formal Russian affiliation has been established, the pattern of her engagements suggests a potential risk of foreign influence.

Implications for Student Organizations

Hollenbeck’s case highlights broader vulnerabilities. U.S. student political organizations, particularly those with ideological missions and national reach, can be attractive targets for foreign influence. The combination of access to young adults, credibility on campuses, and ties to political figures creates strategic opportunities for external actors.

Even the perception of foreign infiltration can damage trust, complicate fundraising, and raise national security concerns, particularly when student data or organizational communications could be exposed.

Vigilance and Transparency Are Essential

While no concrete evidence has emerged proving that Hollenbeck acted on behalf of the Russian government, her Kremlin connections, TPUSA involvement, and early work covering ideologically charged events like Gorka’s summit illustrate a cautionary tale. Student organizations, nonprofits, and journalists must remain alert to potential foreign influence and implement safeguards to protect institutional integrity.

For TPUSA, this means auditing affiliations, reviewing internal vetting procedures, and ensuring participants act in the organization’s and public’s best interests. For journalists and watchdogs, it underscores the importance of persistent investigation into intersections between U.S.-based political networks and foreign actors.

The case of Alexandra Hollenbeck demonstrates that in today’s political environment, the lines between ideology, influence, and infiltration are increasingly blurred—and the stakes for student organizations and U.S. democracy are higher than ever.

From Campus to Command: Charlie Kirk’s Push for Martial Law in U.S. Cities

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk recently made headlines by calling for a full military occupation of American cities following what he terms the “liberation” of Washington, D.C. Speaking on a national platform, Kirk advocated deploying U.S. military forces to urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco to restore order amid rising crime and social unrest. He emphasized that a sustained military presence was necessary until these cities were “safe,” drawing comparisons to the low-crime, tightly controlled environments of Tokyo and Singapore.

Kirk’s call is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a growing faction within right-wing politics that endorses the federalization of local law enforcement issues, invoking military force as a tool for domestic order. He also proposed federalizing Washington, D.C., with military oversight — a step he deems essential to restoring law and order in the nation’s capital.

This stance has sparked significant debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Critics warn that deploying military forces in civilian settings risks authoritarian overreach and undermines democratic norms. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that urgent and decisive action is needed in cities they see as suffering from governance failures. The implications of such a military occupation extend beyond crime statistics to the very fabric of American democracy, raising concerns about militarization, racial justice, and the erosion of local governance.

Background on Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative nonprofit organization established in 2012. Founded when Kirk was just 18, TPUSA has grown into a powerful network dedicated to promoting free markets, limited government, and conservative values among youth. Financially backed by donors including the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, TPUSA reported revenues exceeding $55 million in 2022.

The organization’s stated mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom." However, its campus activities have drawn criticism for compiling “watchlists” targeting left-leaning faculty and spreading misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has closely documented TPUSA’s growth, spotlighting its alliances with conservative student chapters, the appearances of controversial figures on its platforms, and its alignment with Trump administration policies. Beyond campuses, TPUSA has expanded through initiatives like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series, which have featured speakers such as Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Fox News and the Epstein Fallout: Kirk’s Rising Media Profile

Amid Fox News’ ongoing tensions with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal over the Jeffrey Epstein investigative files, Charlie Kirk has been tapped to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend. His appearances on July 27–28, 2025, alongside Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt, signaled a strategic move by Fox News to bolster its conservative youth appeal and MAGA alignment amid internal pressures.

This development follows the Wall Street Journal’s July 2025 investigative report detailing Donald Trump’s past ties with Jeffrey Epstein, including allegations about a hand-drawn birthday card sent to Epstein. Trump has vehemently denied the claims and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, labeling the report defamatory. Fox News, however, has noticeably limited its coverage of the Epstein files and the lawsuit, unlike other right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and Real America’s Voice.

Kirk has vocally attacked the Journal’s reporting, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on Trump. He praised Trump’s lawsuit on his podcast and social media platforms, framing the allegations as baseless attempts to tarnish the former president’s reputation. Despite initial criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi over a DOJ memo regarding the Epstein investigation, Kirk later shifted his position, urging trust in government officials — a reversal that drew attention to the strategic recalibrations within MAGA circles.

Institutional Expansion and Political Influence

TPUSA’s influence extends well beyond college campuses. Through Turning Point Academy, it reaches high schools, while TPUSA Faith engages religious communities. Its political arm, Turning Point Action, spent over $7 million in the 2022 midterms, reflecting significant investment in electoral politics. TPUSA’s 2023 annual report highlights its presence in more than 2,500 schools and training of over 12,000 student activists.

Kirk’s upcoming role on Fox News underscores the merging of youth-oriented conservative political branding with legacy cable television platforms. This integration comes as Fox News attempts to balance the demands of its MAGA base against legal and reputational challenges linked to its corporate ownership. Kirk’s rising profile represents the normalization and institutionalization of organizations like TPUSA within mainstream conservative media.

Charlie Kirk’s calls for military occupation of American cities, coupled with his increasing prominence within conservative media, highlight the evolving landscape of political influence, youth activism, and media power in the United States. As debates intensify over public safety, civil liberties, and the militarization of law enforcement, it is crucial to scrutinize the intersection of political ideology and institutional authority. The implications extend far beyond partisan disputes — touching the core of democratic governance and social cohesion in a deeply divided nation.

---

Sources:

Axios (July 2025): “Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend”
Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”
IRS Form 990 Filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)
Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”
FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures
Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story
TPUSA 2023 Annual Report
Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity
Original Article on Charlie Kirk's Military Occupation Call

Campus Warning: Avoid Contact with Turning Point USA

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) brands itself as a conservative youth movement dedicated to free markets and limited government. In reality, a growing body of investigative reporting, watchdog research, and student testimony reveals an organization built on intimidation, manipulation, and close ties to extremists. Students should be aware of the risks before engaging with TPUSA in any capacity.

From its inception, TPUSA has sought to be confrontational. One of its most notorious tools, the Professor Watchlist, publishes the names, photos, and alleged offenses of professors the group deems “anti-conservative.” This public shaming campaign has been condemned by educators and civil liberties advocates as a threat to academic freedom and personal safety. In more recent years, TPUSA has expanded its targets beyond individual professors, with initiatives like the School Board Watchlist, designed to stir distrust of public education and stoke fear around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

These campaigns are paired with questionable political tactics. Investigations have shown that TPUSA has engaged in covert influence efforts on college campuses, including secretly funding student government elections and running coordinated online disinformation campaigns. Their political arm, Turning Point Action, has been compared to a troll farm for its use of deceptive social media operations.

The group’s leadership and chapters have repeatedly been linked to white supremacist and far-right extremist figures. TPUSA events have hosted or associated with members of Nick Fuentes’ “Groyper” movement, Holocaust deniers, and other alt-right personalities. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and multiple journalists have documented these associations, which TPUSA leaders routinely downplay. Internal communications and leaked chapter messages have exposed racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric from members. Charlie Kirk, TPUSA’s founder, once falsely claimed that a Black woman had “taken his place” at West Point, a statement criticized as both untrue and racially inflammatory.

TPUSA’s messaging also extends beyond politics into science denial. The group has repeatedly dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change, framing environmental concerns as a hoax or left-wing scare tactic, and hosting events that platform climate change skeptics over credible experts. TPUSA has received significant funding from fossil fuel interests, including Koch network-affiliated donors, and from political megadonors such as Foster Friess and Rebekah Mercer, who are known for underwriting climate denial campaigns. Other key allies include right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and media figures such as Tucker Carlson, who have amplified TPUSA’s messaging to broader audiences. The organization has also benefitted from support by religious nationalist groups and political operatives who share its hardline positions on education, race, and gender.

TPUSA’s confrontational model often invites chaos. At UC Davis, a TPUSA-sponsored event erupted into physical clashes involving Proud Boys. Across campuses, students and faculty report that TPUSA representatives deliberately provoke heated exchanges, record them, and circulate the footage to mobilize their base and fundraise off manufactured outrage. Former members have confirmed that such confrontations are not accidental, but rather part of the playbook.

While TPUSA presents itself as a mainstream conservative voice, the evidence paints a darker picture: an organization willing to distort, harass, and align with extremists to achieve its goals. Students seeking honest political debate should look for groups that engage in respectful dialogue, value truth over theatrics, and reject intimidation as a tool.

Sources:
Southern Poverty Law Center – Turning Point USA: Case Study in the Hard Right
Media Matters – Turning Point USA’s History of Racism and White Nationalist Ties
The New Yorker – A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity
Anti-Defamation League – Extremism in American Politics: Turning Point USA
Wired – How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act
Chron – Texas A&M Turning Point Chat Exposes Racist and Homophobic Comments
The Guardian – What I Learned When Turning Point USA Came to My Campus
OpenSecrets – Turning Point USA Donors and Political Funding
DeSmog – Turning Point USA and Fossil Fuel Industry Influence

Art Laffer at YAF: Still Relevant, Still Wrong

Arthur Laffer, the Reagan-era economist best known for the “Laffer Curve,” appeared recently at a Young America's Foundation (YAF) event, still making the same tired claims that have shaped decades of economic inequality, deregulation, and magical thinking. The event, broadcast on C-SPAN, was marketed as a fresh take on conservative economics. What it delivered instead was a rerun of discredited supply-side talking points—punctuated by jokes that fell embarrassingly flat.

Laffer claimed that Donald Trump's tariffs were a strategy to bring about more free trade in the future—a baffling contradiction to anyone who understands trade policy or the basics of coercive economic diplomacy. The idea that protectionism is a roundabout route to free markets would be laughable if it weren't so destructive. But Laffer, like many libertarians, thrives on contradiction. The audience—young, mostly white, mostly male—nodded along as if it all made sense.

He also defended increased U.S. military spending, invoking Ronald Reagan’s 1980s arms buildup. What he didn’t mention: Reagan was in the early stages of dementia during his presidency, and his military strategy deepened the national debt, even as Laffer’s beloved tax cuts starved the government of revenue. That context never surfaced, of course.

Laffer’s appearance was followed by Linda McMahon, former WWE executive and Small Business Administration head under Trump. The tag team pairing reinforced the spectacle of right-wing economic theater disguised as intellectual discourse.

YAF, a competitor to Turning Point USA, presents itself as the more polished brand of conservative youth organizing. It's backed by deep pockets and institutional support, but its message remains the same: glorify the market, demonize government, and elevate charisma over critical thinking. Its speakers are well-coached in rhetorical sparring, skilled in sophistry, and eager to exploit the inexperience of their college-aged audience.

Laffer fits that mold perfectly. He’s less a thought leader than a relic of failed policy, propped up by a movement that rewards ideological loyalty over intellectual honesty. His ideas can't really be called “theories” anymore—empirical evidence has repeatedly debunked them. But among libertarians and the far right, evidence is optional, and repetition is persuasive.

Young America’s Foundation is adept at drawing youth into a worldview of individualism that rarely benefits individuals. It relies on the passion and ignorance of its followers, asking them to embrace contradictions: that tariffs bring freedom, that debt from war is freedom, that cutting taxes magically increases revenue. It's a faith-based economics, and Laffer remains its high priest.

In the end, the only thing more stale than the Laffer Curve is the attempt to keep it alive.

Sources:

• C-SPAN: Art Laffer speech at YAF

• Reagan's Alzheimer's revelations: The New York Times

• Critiques of supply-side economics: Brookings, Economic Policy Institute

• YAF background: Media Matters, The Nation

The Council for National Policy and the Quiet War on Higher Education

The Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive coalition of right-wing activists, donors, and religious leaders, has long operated behind closed doors to reshape American politics. Less visible—but no less consequential—is the CNP’s influence on U.S. higher education. Rather than building a parallel university system, the Council and its affiliates have sought to infiltrate, defund, and redirect existing institutions—while funding their own ideological outposts to train future political operatives and culture warriors.

From its founding in 1981, the CNP has cultivated a network of allies committed to a vision of America rooted in Christian nationalism, economic libertarianism, and anti-communism. Higher education, particularly public and research universities, has been a frequent target of its disdain. These institutions are framed as dens of secularism, moral relativism, and Marxist indoctrination. The strategy has been clear: weaken the credibility and funding of traditional universities while supporting alternative pipelines that reinforce conservative ideology.

Organizations like Turning Point USA, Young America’s Foundation, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have received support from CNP-connected donors and board members. These groups are active on campuses across the country, often attacking faculty and student activists who advocate for racial justice, labor rights, climate action, or LGBTQ+ inclusion. Turning Point’s “Professor Watchlist” is emblematic of this effort, identifying and shaming educators deemed “radical” or “anti-American.” Behind the student-centered branding are well-financed political interests looking to re-engineer campus discourse and manufacture consent for a reactionary worldview.

While public institutions struggle with budget cuts and political interference, private colleges like Hillsdale College and Liberty University flourish with donor support from CNP-affiliated foundations. These schools market themselves as bastions of classical learning and Christian values, but they also function as training grounds for conservative media, law, and politics. Hillsdale in particular, with its rejection of federal funding and its alignment with Trump-era governance, has produced graduates who have moved seamlessly into roles in think tanks, policy shops, and Republican administrations.

The CNP’s influence extends beyond campuses into legislative agendas. Through connected organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the network has promoted laws that aim to ban the teaching of critical race theory, eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, and impose state-mandated curriculum standards favoring patriotism over critical inquiry. Many of these efforts are packaged as promoting intellectual diversity, but in practice they represent a concerted attack on academic freedom.

Higher education is not simply collateral damage in the culture war. It is a primary battlefield. The push to defund public universities, restrict tenure, and surveil classroom speech is not accidental—it is part of a long-term project to discredit institutions that might challenge the political status quo. The goal is not just to influence what is taught, but to control who gets to teach and who gets to learn.

In the CNP’s vision, universities are not places for open debate or exploration, but potential threats to moral order and market orthodoxy. Knowledge becomes dangerous when it questions power. And so the Council works quietly, diligently, to ensure that the next generation of Americans is shaped not by democratic ideals but by theological certainty, corporate loyalty, and partisan allegiance.

While the names and tactics may evolve, the endgame remains the same: a higher education landscape where critical thinking is subordinated to dogma, and where the pursuit of truth yields to the demands of political conformity. Whether the broader public recognizes this campaign in time remains to be seen.

---

Sources
Anne Nelson, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right
Southern Poverty Law Center: “Council for National Policy” profile
Excerpts from leaked CNP membership directories and agendas (SourceWatch, The Guardian, Washington Post)
Isaac Arnsdorf, “Inside the CNP’s Shadowy Strategy Meetings” (Politico)
Hillsdale College Curriculum and Federal Funding Statements
Turning Point USA Professor Watchlist and donor records
Public records from ALEC, Heritage Foundation, and affiliated legislation