The real fraud in higher ed: Universities need that Chinese money



The universities preaching that America is structurally racist now say they need international students to survive. Sad but true.

President Trump on Monday floated a proposal that has conservatives buzzing. Just before meeting with the president of South Korea, while discussing trade negotiations with China, Trump suggested that the deal might include allowing 600,000 Chinese students to attend American universities.

Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing. Why should taxpayers fund that?

I’ve learned not to sprint ahead of Trump’s negotiations. He often uses public remarks as part of the bargaining table — dangling outrageous possibilities to shove the other side into error. And inconveniently for his critics, it usually works. Still, this one deserves a closer look.

Universities built on sand

As a professor at Arizona State University, the nation’s largest state school, I see firsthand how fragile higher education has become. Universities increasingly depend on international students to prop up their budgets. They reorient themselves not around local students but around foreign ones, reshaping programs and communications to make sure outsiders feel at home.

ASU boasts 195,000 students. Yet when the semester began, the university’s homepage highlighted international arrivals, not Arizona students. The welcome-back email did the same. Arizona families — the taxpayers who actually fund the place — were treated as an afterthought.

Administrators justify this by pointing to economic contributions, diversity, and talent. But native students notice the slight. Parents notice it too. The message is clear: Tuition dollars matter more than the citizens who built these schools. ASU may call itself the “New American University,” but more often it presents itself as the “No Longer American University.”

RELATED: Chinese nationals on student visas allegedly ripped off elderly Americans in nasty scheme

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A house of cards

Here’s the truth: Many American universities cannot survive without international tuition checks.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted as much on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, saying the bottom 15% of U.S. colleges would simply shut down without that revenue. Universities have operated like Ponzi schemes, built on the illusion that enrollment growth never ends. But as American students tire of being hectored with radical political agendas, growth slows and the budgets collapse.

The U.S. already hosts about 270,000 Chinese students, not counting tens of thousands more from India, South Korea, and elsewhere. ASU alone has 16,000 international students, down from 18,000 last year. Trump’s proposed deal would more than double the number of Chinese students nationwide overnight.

What are they learning?

Even if you grant the economic benefits, the bigger question — maybe the biggest — is: What sort of education would these 600,000 students receive?

We could introduce them to the greatness of the American experiment, the sweep of Western civilization, and the biblical truths that shaped both. We could even present the gospel to hundreds of thousands of students who may never have heard it before. That would be a noble exchange.

But that isn’t what happens on most campuses.

Drop them into a humanities classroom and they’ll be steeped in anti-racism, DEI dogma, LGBTQ activism, “decolonizing the curriculum,” and the thesis that America and the West are irredeemably wicked. Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing — either by turning foreign students into residents who despise their host country or sending them home as ambassadors of contempt.

Why should American taxpayers fund that?

A higher-ed reckoning

Universities like ASU showcase international students while sidelining their own. They rely on foreign tuition to mask fiscal rot. And in exchange, they sell a curriculum that treats America as racist, the West as evil, and Christianity as oppressive.

No “economic benefit” offsets that catastrophic formula.

If American universities want to survive, they must first clean their own house.

  • Admit the harm caused by their reckless anti-America, anti-West, anti-Christian curriculum.
  • Abandon DEI dogma, corrosive identity politics, and “decolonized” philosophy.
  • Value American students — the citizens and taxpayers who fund these schools.
  • Reorient higher education toward the people of the states and communities that built it.
  • Teach again that we are created by God, equal in worth, and capable of knowing truth, goodness, and beauty.

Only then can we discuss whether more international students make sense. Until then, it is rich with irony: The same universities that teach contempt for America now admit they need foreign students to survive.

Extravagant Bachelorette Parties Give Friendship A Cover Charge

The bachelorette industrial complex is bleeding friendships dry and draining thousands of dollars along with them.

No, The Federal Reserve Shouldn’t Monetize The National Debt Again

Lawmakers of all parties keep thinking that some magic bullet will solve all of the country’s fiscal problems. It won’t.

BlackRock and friends may soon control your digital wallet



America is on the edge of a financial cliff, and Washington’s so-called “solution” is yet another clever ploy that could further centralize power and lead to a reduction in freedom.

The latest scheme is a bipartisan bill dubbed the Genius Act. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on Tuesday by a vote of 68-30. The bill now moves on to the House, where its prospects are less clear.

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty.

Supporters of the law claim it will modernize digital finance by issuing new regulations for stablecoins, shoring up assets currently used by millions of people worldwide.

But the legislation comes with serious threats to liberty as well. It could ultimately become a backdoor way to create a digital dollar, one that offers minimal privacy protections and is easily controlled by massive institutions unaccountable to voters.

What is the Genius Act?

Officially named the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act,” the Genius Act aims to bring order and credibility to the booming stablecoin market.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to supposedly “stable” assets like the U.S. dollar. USD Coin and Tether — two of the most widely used — circulate more than $200 billion combined.

The bill creates a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, allowing them to operate under either state or federal supervision. Lawmakers believe this approach will boost credibility with consumers and financial institutions.

The legislation also forces issuers to disclose their reserve assets, submit to public audits, and comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. That law requires financial entities to implement know-your-customer protocols and anti-money-laundering measures — rules that many stablecoin issuers currently avoid.

Most importantly, the Genius Act would force issuers to back their coins with liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and Treasury securities. For example, for every USD Coin distributed, the issuer would need to maintain $1 in reserves or Treasury bills of equivalent value, ensuring that users can always exchange their stablecoins for dollars.

The Genius Act has drawn broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers from both parties praise its regulatory ambitions. But behind the applause lie serious risks.

Programmable money vs. financial freedom

The bill lays the foundation for a programmable digital currency system — one that lacks basic protections for privacy and liberty.

By granting stablecoins federal recognition and placing them under strict oversight and reserve rules, the Genius Act effectively turns them into government-blessed digital dollars, even if the federal government doesn’t issue them directly.

That might sound like progress — if the bill actually protected consumers. But it doesn’t.

The legislation includes no safeguards to prevent stablecoin issuers from linking usage to social credit systems, such as ESG scores, or restricting legal but politically disfavored transactions. These programmable currencies could easily reflect the ideological preferences of their creators.

RELATED: A brutal wake-up call from America’s most powerful banker

Photo by Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Want to donate to a political cause that a stablecoin company opposes? Expect a digital roadblock. Want to buy red meat, a gas-powered car, or anything else that fails to meet an ESG benchmark? Your money might simply stop working.

That’s not science fiction. That’s the likely outcome if Congress fails to add robust consumer protections to the Genius Act.

A forced hand

No one needs to use stablecoins — at least not yet. The Genius Act doesn’t eliminate traditional dollars. For now, consumers still have alternatives. But that could change quickly.

Stablecoins regulated by the U.S. government offer clear advantages over traditional currency. They move instantly, cost little or nothing to send, and operate around the clock. Because they’re digital, they require no physical infrastructure to create or distribute.

In nearly every respect, government-regulated stablecoins outperform paper money. Once the U.S. government legitimizes them and guarantees their safety, adoption will surge.

As usage grows, demand for traditional dollars could shrink. The companies issuing stablecoins would gain enormous control over economic life. Financial institutions could even begin phasing out physical currency, leaving those who resist digital money with no practical alternative.

That’s why Congress must include strong protections for individual liberty in any bill that accelerates stablecoin adoption. Without those safeguards, Americans may one day wake up to find their economic freedom coded out of existence.

A boon for Treasurys

One of the primary reasons so many in Washington support the Genius Act is that it would increase demand for Treasury bills, which helps the federal government finance its massive debt.

The Genius Act would require stablecoin issuers to back their currencies with cash or U.S. Treasurys. Of the two options, Treasury bills often make more sense for the companies issuing stablecoins. Why? Because Treasury bills pay interest.

Washington is drowning in red ink. With over $36 trillion in national debt and counting, the government desperately needs someone to keep buying its IOUs. Stablecoins could offer a trillion-dollar solution. By 2028, the Treasury Department estimates that stablecoin issuers could hold up to $1 trillion in Treasurys, so long as legislation like the Genius Act becomes law.

The Genius Act isn’t primarily about innovation. It’s about bailing out a bankrupt government.

Who’s pulling the strings?

Even more troubling is who stands to benefit. Major players behind these stablecoins include BlackRock, Fidelity, and other financial giants with deep ties to the globalist ESG agenda and organizations like the World Economic Forum. These aren’t neutral actors. They are ideological enforcers with an appetite for control.

Are these the people we want managing the digital currency of the future?

Are these the institutions we trust to safeguard our freedoms?

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty. If we do not act now, we may soon find ourselves in a nation where every transaction is tracked, every purchase scrutinized, and every dollar you “own” is merely rented from a system that can revoke your access with the flick of a switch.

A Debunking of Money's Value
play icon

A Debunking of Money's Value

American Babies Need Not Apply | 5/13/22
play icon

American Babies Need Not Apply | 5/13/22

Saudi Arabia weighs accepting yuan instead of dollars in oil sales with China



The U.S. dollar may be on its way out as the global reserve currency.

Saudi Arabia is actively engaging in negotiations with Chinese officials to price oil sales to China in yuan instead of the U.S. dollar, the Wall Street Journal reported.

If the two countries decide to conduct business using the Chinese yuan instead of the U.S. dollar, this could mean trouble for America’s dominance as the global economic hegemon.

Reportedly, the Saudi talks with China have been off and on for six years but have recently begun to accelerate as Saudi leadership grows increasingly discontented with American security commitments to defend the country.

The Saudis are unhappy with the lack of American support for their intervention in the ongoing Yemen civil war and over the Biden administration’s renewed attempts to strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

Saudi officials are also reportedly uncomfortable with the Biden administration’s ham-fisted withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.

China currently buys more than 25% of the oil exported from Saudi Arabia. Should these transactions be conducted in yuan instead of dollars, those sales would boost the standing of China’s currency and diminish the standing of the dollar.

Around 80% of global oil sales are transacted in dollars. Saudi Arabia exports roughly 6.2 million barrels of crude oil a day. If the Saudis price even a fraction of this in something other than the dollar, it would mark a profound shift in the global economy’s pecking order.

Since 1974, the Saudis have traded oil exclusively in dollars after making a deal with the Nixon administration that promised security guarantees for the kingdom.

In 2018, the Chinese government introduced oil contracts priced in yuan as it worked to make its currency more tradeable across the globe. To China’s chagrin, this did not increase its leverage in the oil market. And as the Chinese government seeks to reduce its — and by extension the globe’s — dependence on the dollar, it has worked overtime to court Saudi leadership.

In recent years, China has helped the Saudi kingdom domestically manufacture ballistic missiles, provided guidance on the Saudi nuclear initiative, and poured money into Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s pet projects.

Whereas China’s relationship with Saudi Arabia appears to be improving, America’s relationship with the Saudi government is rapidly deteriorating. Prince Mohammed refused to sit in on a call between President Biden and Saudi ruler King Salman in February after U.S. intelligence officials suggested that the prince ordered the killing of a journalist.

A Saudi official said, “The dynamics have dramatically changed. The U.S. relationship with the Saudis has changed, China is the world’s biggest crude importer and they are offering many lucrative incentives to the kingdom.”

He added, “China has been offering everything you could possibly imagine to the kingdom.”