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)

We Are Students First

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we don’t chase prestige. We don’t cater to elite donors, corporate sponsors, or political kingmakers. We don’t worship at the altar of endowments, football stadiums, or shiny branding campaigns. Our compass is set firmly toward truth, justice, and equity—guided by one unwavering principle: we are students first.

We are students of systems—unraveling the machinery of higher education that too often works against the very people it claims to serve. We study the credential mills, the loan sharks in nonprofit clothing, the unaccountable university bureaucracies, and the hollow promises of prosperity dangled before vulnerable populations. We investigate how institutions extract billions from working-class families while underpaying adjuncts and laying off staff. And we do it without fear or favor.

But we are also students in the human sense. We learn from whistleblowers, from former for-profit enrollees drowning in debt, from adjuncts scraping by without healthcare, and from young people who’ve had to abandon their dreams because the system was never built for them in the first place. We seek out the voices that elite media too often ignore—because those voices contain the lessons worth learning.

Unlike many outlets that write about students as case studies or marketing tools, we stand with them. We ask: Who gets excluded from access and opportunity? Who profits from their debt? Who benefits when college becomes more about brand than learning, more about sorting than liberating?

When we say we are students first, we mean we are always learning—about how inequality is produced and reproduced through policy, through finance, and through institutional neglect. We mean we are always listening—especially to those who’ve been burned by the system. And we mean we are always questioning—especially the orthodoxy that says “college equals success,” no matter the cost.

Being students first also means accountability. To ourselves, and to those we cover. We don’t pretend to have all the answers. We don't hide behind false neutrality. But we do our homework. We cite our sources. We follow the money. And we take sides—on the side of debtors, exploited workers, and the people pushed to the margins.

So when others ask where we stand in the crumbling landscape of higher education, our answer is simple:

At HEI, we are students first. And we stand with those the system has left behind.

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.

The Weight of a Gift: Phil and Penny Knight’s $2 Billion to Cancer Research—and What It Reveals About Power in Higher Ed and Medicine

On August 14, 2025, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife Penny Knight pledged an extraordinary $2 billion to the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)—the largest single gift ever to a U.S. university-affiliated health center, surpassing Michael Bloomberg’s $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University.

Transformational Impact—or Power Play?

This gift aims to double the Institute’s capacity, expand research and treatment infrastructure, and bolster holistic patient services—including psychological, financial, nutritional, and survivorship support. A new governance structure—the Knight Cancer Group—will operate autonomously within OHSU, led by Dr. Brian Druker, renowned for his work on Gleevec.

At a time when public funding for scientific research is shrinking, the Knights emphasize their vision for a “patient-centered cancer center of global impact.” The gift promises to accelerate innovation and potentially save thousands of lives.

---

The Double-Edged Sword of Mega-Philanthropy

Wealth Dictates Direction

With more than $4 billion donated across Oregon universities and institutions—including the Knight Cancer Challenge and the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact—the Knights wield significant influence over institutional priorities, culture, and governance.

Inequality and Access

A Higher Education Inquirer exposé, "The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers" (March 2025), warns that elite medical institutions often deliver world-class care while perpetuating inequities—through historical exploitation, systemic bias, and exclusion of marginalized communities. Without safeguards, even philanthropic efforts can reinforce structural disparities.

Public Dependency and Private Control

As public funding erodes, institutions increasingly rely on mega-donors. The creation of the Knight Cancer Group with autonomous authority inside OHSU is a stark example of donor-driven governance in what is nominally a public institution.

---

Critical Context: Nike’s Controversies

While Phil Knight’s philanthropic legacy is significant, Nike—the company he co-founded—has a long history of controversies that color public perception of his influence:

• Labor Practices: For decades, Nike has faced accusations of using overseas sweatshops with poor working conditions, low pay, and child labor. More recently, it was linked to pandemic-era wage theft at a Thai supplier factory.

• Gender Discrimination: Nike settled a major sexual discrimination lawsuit in 2025 after years of allegations from former employees. Unsealed court records revealed nearly two dozen harassment claims against senior staff.

• Athlete Treatment: The Nike Oregon Project faced abuse allegations from runners like Mary Cain, who accused coaches of dangerous training practices and body shaming.

• Product and Marketing Controversies: The company drew backlash for designing revealing Olympic women’s uniforms and was accused by an indie filmmaker of copying her work for a Nike ad.

• Legal Challenges: Nike faces a class-action lawsuit over selling NFTs alleged to be unregistered securities.

• Performance-Enhancing Technology: Its Vaporfly running shoes sparked debates about “mechanical doping” in competitive athletics.

These issues underscore the complex interplay between Knight’s philanthropic image and the practices of the corporation tied to his wealth.

---

Navigating Philanthropy Through a Nuanced Lens

Phil Knight’s $2 billion gift offers enormous potential for advancing cancer research and treatment. Yet it also highlights the risks of relying on private wealth to shape public institutions. Mega-donations can spur breakthroughs—but they can also centralize influence, limit democratic oversight, and entrench inequalities.

If the future of higher education and medicine increasingly depends on billionaire philanthropy, society must ensure that governance, accountability, and equity remain at the forefront—so the benefits reach all, not just the privileged few.

---

Sources

• Associated Press, Nike co-founder Phil Knight and wife pledge record $2B to Oregon cancer center (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Wall Street Journal, Phil Knight Gives $2 Billion to Oregon Health & Science University (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Town & Country, Phil Knight’s $2 Billion Cancer Center Gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Becker’s Hospital Review, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute receives $2B gift (Aug. 14, 2025)

• Higher Education Inquirer, The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers (Mar. 2025)

• Oregon Capital Insider, Phil Knight’s Big Ticket Donations Surpass $2 Billion (Apr. 25, 2023)

• Cupertino Times, Labor Practices Controversy: How Nike Faced Its Sweatshop Scandal (Nov. 23, 2024)

• Times of Innovation, Nike Told to Compensate Workers in High-Profile Labour Controversy (Dec. 2024)

• Forbes, Nike To Settle Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Hanging Over Its Head Since 2018 (Apr. 1, 2025)

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Unsealed Court Records Reveal New Details About Nike Sex Discrimination Case (2025)

• Glamour, Nike Gets Backlash from Athletes Over ‘Sexist’ Track and Field Uniforms (Apr. 17, 2024)

• Times of India, Indie Filmmaker Tells Nike Their Ad… Shockingly Similar to Her Work (May 2025)

• Wikipedia, Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy (2025)

• Wikipedia, Nike Oregon Project (2025)

• The Verge, Nike Faces Class Action Over RTFKT NFT Project (2025)

Was Turning Point USA inflitrated 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.

Trumpism, Neoliberalism, and the Abandoned Majority

In the ongoing battle between Trumpism and neoliberalism, much of the mainstream narrative paints these forces as diametrically opposed. In reality, while they clash on culture-war rhetoric and political branding, both camps operate in ways that protect entrenched wealth and power—especially within higher education.

Trumpism, with its populist veneer, frames itself as a rebellion against “the establishment.” Yet Donald Trump’s policies in office—including massive corporate tax cuts, deregulation favoring billionaires, and the rollback of labor protections—aligned closely with neoliberal orthodoxy. His administration stacked the Department of Education with for-profit college lobbyists and dismantled borrower protections, leaving indebted students vulnerable to predatory lending.

Neoliberalism, as embodied by centrist Democrats and much of the university establishment, champions “meritocracy” and global competitiveness, but often functions as a machine for upward wealth transfer. University leaders such as Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber, Northwestern’s Michael Schill, Harvard’s Claudine Gay, Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Texas A&M’s M. Katherine Banks, and reformist chancellors Andrew Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt oversee institutions that cut faculty jobs, outsource labor, and raise tuition, all while securing lucrative corporate and donor partnerships. These leaders, regardless of political branding, manage universities as if they were hedge funds with classrooms attached.

In both cases, the non-elite—students burdened by soaring debt, adjunct professors lacking job security, and underpaid university workers—remain locked in systems of extraction. Trumpist politicians rail against “liberal elites” while quietly protecting billionaire donors and for-profit education interests. Neoliberal university leaders publicly oppose Trumpism but maintain donor networks tied to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and global finance, reinforcing the same structural inequality.

This false binary obscures the shared economic agenda of privatization, commodification, and concentration of wealth and power within elite institutions. For the working class and the educated underclass, there is no true champion—only differing marketing strategies for the same system of exploitation.

---

Sources

• Henry A. Giroux, Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Books, 2014)

• David Dayen, “Trump’s Fake Populism,” The American Prospect

• Jon Marcus, “The New College Presidents and Their Corporate Mindset,” The Hechinger Report

• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, “Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports”

• New York Times coverage of Claudine Gay, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Michael Schill, and M. Katherine Banks’ administrative records

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

Troubled Future: Data Centers, Crypto, and EPA Downsizing

The environmental costs of digital infrastructure and financial speculation are rising rapidly, while federal oversight remains inconsistent and under-resourced. Data centers and cryptocurrency mining now consume vast amounts of electricity and water across the United States, yet much of this resource use is poorly tracked or omitted from public emissions reporting. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has seen significant staffing losses, rule reversals, and new threats to its institutional survival.

These trends are not isolated. Together, they reflect a shift toward energy-intensive technologies, deregulation of high-polluting industries, and a weakened capacity to respond to environmental harm. The long-term consequences will be difficult to reverse.

The Energy and Water Demands of Data Centers

Data centers are expanding to meet demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and digital storage. These facilities rely heavily on continuous electricity and water for cooling. Some consume millions of gallons of water per day, and projections show their electricity use may double in the next few years. Many are located in areas already under water stress.

The environmental impact of data centers goes beyond their daily operations. Construction materials, server manufacturing, and on-site diesel backup generators all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet these emissions are often excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories, especially when they occur outside the facility’s geographic or corporate boundaries.

Crypto Mining as an Unregulated Energy Sector

Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, requires massive computing power. These operations have migrated to U.S. states with low energy prices and minimal regulatory oversight. Bitcoin mining alone now consumes more electricity annually than many countries.

The emissions from crypto mining are significant, but they are not consistently tracked. Facilities often operate below emissions reporting thresholds or through decentralized networks that fall outside EPA scrutiny. In many cases, power is sourced from fossil fuels, and companies are not required to disclose their energy mix or carbon footprint.

Residents living near crypto facilities have reported noise, pollution, and local grid strain. Yet enforcement is limited or nonexistent in most jurisdictions.

The Shrinking Capacity of the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost hundreds of experienced staff since 2017, including scientists and enforcement personnel. Budget cuts, political pressure, and legal constraints have made it difficult for the agency to maintain oversight of fast-growing industries like digital infrastructure and blockchain technology.

Many environmental rules were rolled back between 2017 and 2020, increasing overall emissions and reducing safeguards for air and water. Although some regulations have been restored, the agency remains under political threat. Proposals to reorganize or dismantle the EPA altogether have resurfaced, potentially removing the last federal layer of accountability in many regions.

Greenhouse gas reporting systems still rely heavily on corporate self-reporting. Emerging sectors such as AI, crypto, and hyperscale data storage are not fully integrated into federal carbon inventories, and indirect emissions—such as those from supply chains and off-site electricity generation—are often omitted entirely.

A Delayed and Unequal Cost

The consequences of these developments will accumulate slowly but with increasing severity. Emissions released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Water used to cool servers will not be available to communities experiencing drought or contamination.

Those who profit from these trends—tech corporations, crypto investors, and political donors—will not be the ones facing the costs. The burden will fall on future generations, frontline communities, and the global South.

Institutions of higher education, many of which depend on cloud platforms, server farms, and AI applications, are deeply connected to this digital growth. They also have an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to examine the long-term impacts of these systems and hold corporate partners accountable.

Technological advancement has material consequences. The energy and water behind our digital lives are not virtual, and the lack of environmental regulation only increases the harm. Without accurate measurement and stronger enforcement, damage will continue without acknowledgement—and without remedy.

Sources
International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024
U.S. Department of Energy, Quadrennial Technology Review, 2023
Ma, J. et al., “The Water Footprint of Data Centers,” Nature Communications, 2023
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Crypto-Assets Report, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2024
Government Accountability Office, EPA Workforce Report, 2021
Brookings Institution, Deregulation Tracker, 2020
Greenpeace USA, Poisoned by Pollution: Crypto Mining’s Environmental Toll, 2022
ProPublica, The Real Cost of the Cloud, 2023

Trump DOJ Intensifies “Revenge Tour” Amid Epstein Fallout

The Department of Justice, under the renewed influence of former President Donald Trump’s network, appears to be escalating a politically charged “revenge tour.” Critics argue this wave of federal legal actions is increasingly aimed at discrediting prominent critics—most notably New York Attorney General Letitia James—as a distraction from the persistent and troubling Epstein scandal and its unsettling connections to elite institutions.

HEI’s Ongoing Epstein Reporting

HEI has consistently sounded the alarm on how universities and higher education institutions are complicit in the Epstein network—whether through silence, financial entanglements, or willful ignorance. As highlighted in recent pieces like "Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?", HEI stressed how the scandal’s true weight lies not only in its crimes but in the cover‑ups and institutional complicity that enabled it Higher Education Inquirer.

An editorial titled "Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files" went further, warning that restoring any moral authority in academe demands radical transparency—disclosing donor histories, instituting independent oversight, and dismantling the secrecy that protects powerful actors Higher Education Inquirer.

HEI also described how Epstein’s infiltration of higher ed wasn’t incidental—it was symptomatic of neoliberal corruption: where ethical standards bow to big money, and university allegiance lies with donors, not truth or justice Higher Education Inquirer+1.

The DOJ’s Target: Letitia James

Now, against this backdrop, the Justice Department has launched aggressive scrutiny of Letitia James’s record:

• Subpoenas issued today by the DOJ and an Albany grand jury seek documents related to her successful $454–$500 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and her NRA fraud case PoliticoReutersThe GuardianThe Washington PostNew York Post. Authorities are probing whether her actions violated Trump’s civil rights—a highly unusual inquiry into a sitting attorney general ReutersThe Washington Post.

• Parallel to that, there's a separate investigation into mortgage fraud based on allegations she manipulated property records to get favorable loan terms—a referral reportedly emanating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency New York PostPolitico.

James rejects the charges as politically motivated retaliation—labeling them part of Trump’s “revenge tour” designed to punish opponents for doing their jobs PoliticoThe Washington Post.

Former FBI Official James E. Dennehy Forced Out Amid DOJ Clashes

Compounding the turmoil, former FBI assistant director James E. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York Field Office, was forced to resign in early 2025. Dennehy reportedly clashed with the DOJ over demands to identify agents involved in January 6 investigations and expressed concern that federal law enforcement officials were being removed for simply doing their jobs.

His departure underscores ongoing instability and politicization within key federal law enforcement agencies during this period of intensified DOJ retaliation.

Why This Matters for Higher Education

HEI’s mission is to expose how power, money, and politics distort institutions meant to serve the public good. The Trump DOJ’s apparent weaponization of federal power to target legal critics—under the guise of legitimacy—poses a broader risk: it could eclipse critical investigations into elite networks like Epstein’s. Distracting from those deeper, systemic stories benefits entrenched power structures and lets accountability fade.

Sources:

• HEI articles on Trump’s DOJ politicization and Letitia James investigations

• FBI leadership changes, 2025 (James E. Dennehy’s resignation)

• Investigative reports on the Epstein case and its fallout

Judge Bove, the Rule of Law, and the Reactionary Turn of the Courts

Judge Richard Bove has been publicly critical of judicial institutions, warning that American courts have strayed from their intended function of upholding justice and truth. In particular, Bove has voiced concern about how whistleblowers are treated—targeted for retaliation, marginalized by institutions, and left without recourse in a system designed to shield the powerful. But Bove’s own record and affiliations cast doubt on the consistency of his legal philosophy. As a Trump-aligned appointee, Bove is more likely to deepen the court’s ideological entrenchment than to reverse it. His selective critiques of the judiciary seem less about strengthening the rule of law than about steering it toward reactionary ends.

Bove has written extensively about whistleblower suppression, documenting how statutes like the Whistleblower Protection Act and False Claims Act are gutted by procedural roadblocks and judicial indifference. He has pointed to a pattern in which federal courts quietly dismiss cases before any public accountability can emerge. These arguments have real merit. In education, defense, public health, and finance, those who speak out against corruption are often destroyed professionally—and the courts typically do little to protect them.

Yet Bove’s credibility as a reformer is undermined by his political proximity to Trumpism, a movement that has actively eroded public trust in legal and democratic institutions while consolidating judicial power through appointments, loyalty tests, and legal reinterpretations designed to roll back rights. While Bove criticizes certain elements of the judiciary, he appears to support—and potentially enable—the broader project of reactionary capture.

His recent elevation comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has already lurched to the right, and trust in the institution is near historic lows. The Roberts Court has gutted voting rights, weakened environmental protections, and removed federal abortion protections. These are not isolated rulings; they reflect a larger pattern of judicial rollback. Adding judges like Bove to the lower federal courts—and possibly grooming them for higher positions—is a strategy to entrench that agenda for decades.

The idea that the Supreme Court is now “broken” assumes it was once apolitical. But history suggests otherwise. From Dred Scott and Plessy to Lochner and Buck v. Bell, the Court has long used its authority to uphold racial hierarchies, corporate dominance, and the suppression of dissent. In this sense, Bove does not represent a break with tradition but rather a continuation of it—albeit with a different rhetorical emphasis.

In his writings, Bove laments the loss of public trust in courts. But trust is earned through fair and consistent application of the law, not through ideological fidelity or performative dissent. His own views suggest a selective application of justice: one that claims to protect whistleblowers while aligning with a political movement that regularly vilifies them; one that criticizes judicial corruption while serving those who have actively undermined judicial independence.

The whistleblowers Bove claims to defend are often the same people targeted by the very forces that empowered his rise. Those who exposed abuses at ICE detention centers, in the Trump Organization’s finances, in the handling of COVID-19 data, or in for-profit education scams tied to political donors—many found no champion in the courts. And they are unlikely to find one in Bove.

Bove’s appointment must be understood not just in terms of individual qualifications, but in terms of broader institutional transformation. Courts are being packed not just with conservatives, but with ideologues who share a narrow vision of rights—especially corporate and religious ones—while constraining public protections, reproductive freedoms, and worker rights.

In the long term, this strategy may succeed in shifting the legal consensus even further. The Court, already unmoored from popular legitimacy, could continue to reverse decades of legal precedent. While Bove raises important points about how the system fails truth-tellers, his participation in a wider political project of rollback should not be ignored. His version of the rule of law is unlikely to serve the public—it is more likely to reinforce a system that protects power from accountability.

Sources
Richard Bove, “The System Punishes Whistleblowers While Enabling Crime,” Financial Regulation Newsletter, 2023
Richard Bove, “Why the Courts Are Losing Public Trust,” Independent Legal Review, 2024
National Whistleblower Center, “Judicial Retaliation Against Whistleblowers,” 2023
The Brookings Institution, “The Supreme Court and Public Legitimacy,” 2023
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: A Media Tour Built on Contradictions

In mid-2025, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began a coordinated media tour across the United States. The campaign has included visits to evangelical churches, conservative news outlets, and donor events. Johnnie Moore Jr., long associated with Liberty University and serving as executive chair of GHF, has been a primary spokesperson for the initiative.

The stated goal of the media campaign is to raise support for humanitarian relief operations in Gaza. However, the distribution of aid by GHF has been accompanied by significant violence. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported on July 22 that at least 766 people have been killed in the vicinity of GHF distribution sites. The Gaza Health Ministry stated on July 1 that approximately 70% of all aid-related deaths have occurred at or near these sites.

The OHCHR, along with Gaza officials and eyewitnesses, has attributed many of these deaths to Israeli military forces. Additionally, U.S. contractors working with GHF have been documented shooting Palestinian civilians at distribution points. Former GHF personnel have described a workplace environment with minimal oversight and a culture that devalues the people receiving aid.

On July 16, a crowd crush at a GHF site resulted in additional fatalities. Gaza authorities and witnesses have assigned responsibility to both GHF staff and the Israeli military, while GHF has claimed that the incident was caused by Hamas.

Doctors Without Borders has described the situation around GHF aid sites as “slaughter masquerading as aid.” The Center for Constitutional Rights, along with 14 other human rights organizations, issued a joint statement warning that GHF could be implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under international law.

Despite the severity of these incidents, GHF and the Israeli Defense Forces have consistently denied that their actions have caused civilian deaths. Both organizations assert that only warning shots were used. GHF has acknowledged one deadly incident—referring to the July 16 crowd crush—but disputes the account provided by Gaza officials.

GHF was established in early 2025 with backing from U.S. political donors and coordination with the Israeli military. Independent oversight of the organization's activities in Gaza has been limited.

The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating GHF and its leadership in the context of broader inquiries into the political influence of Christian universities. For years, HEI has investigated the intersection of higher education, foreign policy, and private contractors. We continue this work because few others are doing so.

Sources:

• UN OHCHR Situation Reports, July 2025

• Gaza Health Ministry Statements, July 2025

• Doctors Without Borders Press Release, July 2025

• Center for Constitutional Rights, Joint Statement, July 2025

• Witness statements documented by international and local media

• Gaza Humanitarian Foundation press briefings

• Higher Education Inquirer archives, 2016–2025

Who Really Rules Higher Education in Texas?

Texas has long held a paradoxical position in American higher education—home to elite research universities like the University of Texas at Austin and Rice University, sprawling community colleges, aggressive for-profit colleges, and some of the nation’s most ideological legislative battles over curriculum and control. But beneath this multifaceted system lies a sharper question: Who really rules higher education in Texas?

The answer, as in William Domhoff's Who Rules America?, lies not in the democratic ideal of a neutral, public-serving education system, but in a network of wealth, political power, and corporate interests that increasingly determine who gets educated, what they learn, and who profits.

Oil, Oligarchs, and the Board of Regents

Texas higher education has always been intertwined with fossil fuel wealth. The University of Texas and Texas A&M systems benefit from the Permanent University Fund (PUF), built from vast West Texas oil and gas revenues. This financial cushion has helped build world-class infrastructure—but it has also made these institutions vulnerable to elite capture.

Regents appointed by Republican governors—often wealthy businesspeople, energy executives, and political donors—wield enormous influence. These appointments are less about educational expertise than loyalty to political and economic interests. The Board of Regents has functioned as a tool for ideological enforcement and donor-class control, rather than a steward of academic integrity.

The Shadow Power of Elite Private Schools

Elite private institutions such as Rice University, Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University play a quieter but equally significant role in shaping Texas’s academic and cultural landscape. Heavily endowed, often legacy-driven, and historically exclusionary, these schools serve as pipelines to elite law firms, corporate boards, and government agencies.

Though less exposed to direct political interference than public schools, these institutions remain tethered to the same economic power centers—big oil, finance, and real estate. Their boards are dominated by billionaires, their research often subsidized by corporate contracts, and their prestige protected by carefully curated admissions policies. The myth of meritocracy is preserved through glossy brochures and selective philanthropy, but access remains restricted by legacy, wealth, and social capital.

The University of Austin: A Privatized Culture War Experiment

The recently launched University of Austin (UATX) has emerged as the most explicit expression of Texas’s ideological drift. Founded by anti-woke entrepreneurs and libertarian-leaning academics, UATX markets itself as a haven for free speech and anti-orthodoxy—but it is, in essence, a venture capital-funded think tank with a university label.

With backing from Silicon Valley moguls and conservative influencers, UATX represents the privatized, boutique model of ideological education: elite, exclusionary, and built from the top down. It doesn’t serve the broader public so much as it serves a political narrative. It is less about offering a robust education than cultivating a new cadre of culture warriors with academic credentials.

The Rise of Christian Nationalists and Culture War Education

In parallel, Texas’s right-wing legislature has increasingly politicized public higher education. DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices have been defunded. Critical race theory has been demonized. Professors face mounting surveillance and restrictions on academic content.

Senate Bill 17, sponsored by State Senator Brandon Creighton, banned DEI offices across public institutions. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has explicitly called for the dismissal of faculty deemed too liberal. These moves are not isolated—they reflect a growing campaign to remake public education as a conservative ideological apparatus.

Privatization and the Businessification of Education

Corporate power, meanwhile, has reshaped the educational infrastructure behind the scenes. Think tanks like the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)—funded by Koch money and fossil fuel magnates—push privatization, deregulation, and the businessification of public services.

Online program managers (OPMs), ed-tech startups, and private equity-funded providers offer turnkey degrees and credentialing schemes that promise efficiency but often deliver subpar instruction, student surveillance, and high attrition. The revolving door between university administrators and the for-profit education sector ensures that public education serves private goals.

Who’s Left Out?

Working-class Texans—especially Black, Hispanic, and rural students—remain sidelined. Community colleges, where the majority of first-generation and low-income students begin, are perennially underfunded and politically neglected. Four-year public institutions are increasingly unaffordable. Debt is rising. Admissions remain stratified by zip code, standardized tests, and legacy connections.

Undocumented students and DACA recipients, once supported by early DREAM Act-style policies, now face mounting barriers. The ideal of universal access is being eroded by systemic inequality—racial, economic, and political.

Resistance and Hope

Yet Texas is not entirely lost to reaction. Faculty groups, student organizers, and investigative journalists are pushing back. Community colleges are innovating against austerity. Alternative models of education—democratic, inclusive, publicly accountable—persist, even if they are under threat.

But to truly reclaim higher education for the people, we must see through the spectacle. Texas doesn’t just have a higher ed system—it has a ruling class that uses education to reproduce its power. Until we confront that reality, the state’s students, workers, and communities will continue to bear the cost.

---

In Texas, who rules higher education? Not students. Not teachers. Not communities. The answer is: oil barons, hedge funders, ideologues, and empire builders. Until that changes, higher education will remain a tool of exclusion—not liberation.

---

Sources:

• Domhoff, William. Who Rules America? McGraw-Hill Education, multiple editions.

• Texas Tribune. “Gov. Abbott's Higher Ed Appointees Have Deep Industry Ties.” Texas Tribune

• University of Texas System. “The Permanent University Fund (PUF).” utsystem.edu

• Inside Higher Ed. “Texas Bans DEI in Higher Education.” (2023)

• Chronicle of Higher Education. “Dan Patrick’s Culture War Against Texas Professors.”

• Texas Public Policy Foundation. tppf.org

• The University of Austin. “Why We're Founding a New University.” uaustin.org

• Hechinger Report. “Who Gets Left Behind at Texas Community Colleges?”

• Education Trust. “Racial Disparities in Texas Higher Education Outcomes.”

• The Century Foundation. “The Problem with Online Program Managers.”

• The Intercept. “Billionaires and Anti-Woke Crusaders Launch a University in Texas.”

Tips, leaks, or story ideas? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer.

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