Redistribution comes for Harvard — and it’s glorious



If you’ve endured a university humanities class in the past decade, you’ve probably encountered something closer to a revival for secular dogma than a center of learning. The professors preach cultural Marxism in cap and gown. Saints include Che Guevara. Sinners: white, heteronormative males. Sacred rites: pronoun rituals and land acknowledgments.

At the heart of this faith lies one central mantra: “The rich must pay their fair share.” The chant rings through classrooms and protests alike, uttered with all the subtlety of a Gregorian monk — though with far less harmony and far more self-righteousness.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

Let’s be fair. If everyone pays the same tax rate, the rich still pay more in absolute dollars. But that kind of equality doesn’t satisfy the high priests of redistribution. They demand “equity,” which in this context means punishing the successful with steeper percentages. Anything less is deemed injustice. Anything less is oppression. Anything less confirms you didn’t graduate with a gender studies degree and an enduring grudge.

I don’t bring this up just to trigger memories of a feminist philosophy professor scolding you for your privilege. I mention it because, at long last, I agree with them. Yes, the rich should pay a higher rate. And I know exactly where to start: with the universities themselves.

Here’s the irony — a brand of justice so rich even a tenured literature professor could see it. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers on the universities’ own demands. The new graduated endowment tax will slap elite schools like Harvard and Yale with a levy of up to 8% on their investment income.

That’s not chump change. That’s enough to make a development officer cry into his ethically sourced, carbon-neutral latte.

These institutions — which idolize Alfred Kinsey, stack 95% of their faculties with leftists, and teach students to hate America — are finally getting a taste of the redistributionist medicine they’ve long prescribed to others. After decades of turning our culture into a grievance-riddled mess, they’re now paying the price. Literally.

RELATED: Trump and Linda McMahon are crushing DEI in law and medical schools with a brilliant approach

  The Washington Post/Getty Images

Call it poetic justice. Better yet, call it providential irony. Let these institutions finance the repair of the very foundations they’ve spent years undermining.

But don’t stop there.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon should give students a clear legal path to demand refunds for failed educations. If a business promises a product and fails to deliver, customers deserve their money back. Why not apply the same principle to overpriced degrees in grievance studies?

And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should open the floodgates to lawsuits against professors who, without any medical training, diagnosed gender dysphoria and pushed irreversible surgeries as cures for teenage angst. These people couldn’t diagnose a flat tire, but they felt confident calling your daughter a boy and your son a pansexual moon sprite.

Only when faced with real consequences — financial and legal — might these institutions begin to take their responsibilities seriously again. Only then might they stop operating as what John Calvin once called “idol factories” — churning out false gods and vain imaginations at record speed.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

This SCOTUS Session Confirmed The Vibe Shift On Transing Kids

The gender craze is losing in the Supreme Court and in the court of public opinion.

A New Tax Provision Supposedly Targeting Junk Lawsuits Actually Imperils Conservatives

Trial lawyers and the left deserve a good thrashing (policy-wise), but that isn’t what these bills do.

SCOTUS Agrees To Decide Case On Candidates’ Standing To Challenge Election Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case involving questions surrounding federal candidate litigation of state election regulations. Known as Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the case offers the nation’s highest court with the opportunity to provide a definitive ruling on the issue of whether a federal candidate who has […]

CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway



Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) dropped a bombshell last week about what the Biden administration knew — and covered up — about the dangers of the COVID shot. His roundtable featured Dr. Peter McCullough, arguably the country’s leading cardiologist and a frequent guest on my show since the pandemic fell upon the land in 2020.

Let’s talk about what they exposed — starting with VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. VAERS came out of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave pharmaceutical companies legal immunity for vaccine-related injuries. In exchange, the government created a “self-reporting” database where anyone could report adverse events. But good luck using it. The interface often crashed or timed out, forced users to restart from scratch, and made tracking real harms nearly impossible.

Far too many Americans can only see COVID in the rearview mirror now, when they should still be seeing it in their nightmares and demanding severe justice.

That wasn’t a bug. It was the point.

A Harvard Medical Review study concluded more than 25 years ago that VAERS undercounted adverse events by a factor of 100. The CDC knew it. During COVID, instead of fixing VAERS, the CDC quietly built a separate system — V-safe — to track mRNA shot outcomes. It compiled peer-to-peer data from over 10 million Americans. The CDC buried those results until Del Bigtree and the Informed Consent Action Network forced the release through a lawsuit.

What did V-safe show? Eight percent of people who got the COVID jab suffered an adverse event requiring medical attention — from checkups to death. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a scandal. The United States has pulled vaccines from the market for far smaller complication rates. Meanwhile, the Biden administration forced this shot on everyone — including healthy kids — while knowing it was more dangerous to them than the virus itself.

Remember the wall-to-wall propaganda campaigns pushing the jab? Did any of them warn you about the 8% of recipients who suffered serious side effects? No. Were you offered a real choice based on your age, health status, or risk profile? Or were you coerced — by a toxic blend of government, corporations, and media lies — into rolling up your sleeve?

We all know the answer.

That’s not just manipulation. That’s a crime. The CDC’s own data from the height of the pandemic showed that only 2% of COVID cases required hospitalization. Yet polls showed Democrats believed the number was 25%. That disconnect didn’t happen by accident. It was manufactured. A psychological operation convinced Americans that the shot was the only way out, even though the jab carried a four times greater risk of harm than the virus itself — before even factoring in age or comorbidities.

RELATED: Heroic COVID docs punished as Abbott, Texas lawmakers stay silent

  Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Younger, healthier Americans faced almost no threat from COVID. They weren’t told that either. They had to find out on shows like mine.

By spring 2022, the final infection fatality rate was in. Just 0.5% for the elderly. For children and teens (ages 0-19)? A microscopic 0.003%. But the government shut down schools, crushed businesses, and destroyed lives — all while pushing an experimental shot with exponentially higher risks.

No one but MSNBC viewers would have lined up for this poison if they’d known the truth. But platforms like YouTube, the largest video site on the planet, actively censored anyone who tried to sound the alarm. That included me — and brave doctors like McCullough — who were banned for speaking plainly about early treatments and adverse events.

Instead, they stuck ventilators down people’s throats while TikTok nurses danced for clout.

So will anyone ever pay for this disaster before the spike proteins strike midnight? Or are exploding hearts, turbo cancers, and collapsing fertility rates just the price we pay for compliance?

Far too many Americans can only see COVID in the rearview mirror now, when they should still be seeing it in their nightmares and demanding severe justice.

How Republicans can shut down this overbearing agency once and for all



With accountability and spending restraint more urgent than ever, Congress should shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for good. Eliminating the CFPB would mark a decisive move to protect taxpayers from another bloated, unaccountable government agency. If Republicans, Congress, and President Donald Trump want to keep their promise to rein in Washington’s runaway bureaucracy, they must ensure this agency stays dead — and buried for good.

The CFPB’s unchecked growth and regulatory overreach have raised red flags for years. Born out of the 2008 financial crisis, the agency operates with minimal oversight and has long avoided serious scrutiny. Its expanding budget and vague authority continue to spark legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits. Closing down the CFPB would end a failed bureaucratic experiment and send a clear message: Every federal agency answers to the taxpayers. No exceptions.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand.

The CFPB was built to operate independently, beyond the reach of Congress or the president. Lawmakers granted it broad, vague authority — allowing unelected bureaucrats to meddle freely in the U.S. economy. Beyond its track record of economic failure, the CFPB’s structure flatly contradicts the American model of representative government.

President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, acted quickly. They made high-impact decisions to show Americans they were serious about cutting waste, reducing overreach, and eliminating redundancy across the federal bureaucracy. When the CFPB came up for its DOGE review, the administration halted its operations and dismissed hundreds of staff.

That move triggered criticism from the usual quarters, but consumers and lawmakers should look deeper. Ending the CFPB isn’t just about cost-cutting. It signaled a broader plan to streamline the federal government and promote efficiency across every agency.

Still, even the DOGE can’t finish the job without Congress. Only Congress can repeal the statute that established the CFPB — and only Congress can shut the agency down for good. Lawmakers must do so.

The CFPB currently controls its own funding, bypassing the regular appropriations process and evading critical checks and balances. Reclaiming those dollars would help reduce the deficit, and redistributing the CFPB’s limited useful functions to other agencies would ensure continued consumer protections under proper oversight.

The Federal Reserve and other agencies already handle key aspects of financial regulation and could easily absorb the CFPB’s remaining duties. Congress must finally draw the line: no more duplicative mandates, no more unchecked authority, and no more mission creep. If consumer protections matter — and they do — then Congress must deliver them through a structure that answers to the people.

RELATED: Congress claps back at Biden’s 'junk fee' crusade

 Ployker via iStock/Getty Images

Fortunately, the CFPB has begun scaling back some of its overreach. Earlier this month, the agency dropped its lawsuit against Credit Acceptance Corporation, an auto lender. That move signals a step in the right direction — away from regulatory overreach and toward a more balanced role in the economy.

Every unnecessary enforcement action piles compliance costs on businesses, stifles innovation, and hampers economic growth. Reassessing these missteps marks progress toward a regulatory approach that defends consumers without punishing industry.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand. They also deserve policies shaped by accountable officials, not by bureaucrats operating in defiance of congressional oversight. Credit access remains essential for Americans seeking financial stability in times of need. Crafting sound regulations — and eliminating those that never made sense — protects both their financial futures and the broader economy.

Consumers also deserve protection they can trust. Creditors need clear, consistent rules to serve their customers without facing unpredictable regulatory entanglements. Any reform bill must address these concerns directly and distribute the CFPB’s remaining legitimate duties across existing, accountable agencies.

As these changes take shape, stakeholders must stay engaged. Reforms should be implemented deliberately and effectively — promoting economic growth while preserving oversight where it’s needed. If President Trump wants to cement his legacy as the president who dismantled the administrative state, he must make sure the CFPB doesn’t just get paused. It must stay gone for good.

This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment



We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.

Yet, here we are again.

Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.

This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.

Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.

In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.

In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”

Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.

So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?

The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.

This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.

And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.

During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”

It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.

Trump has a golden opportunity to smash the student loan trap



Student loans are back in the headlines as the Trump administration moves to resume collections on delinquent federal student debt.

The issue demands serious scrutiny. Borrowers should honor their obligations. Yet the federal government has become the world’s largest predatory lender, handing tens of thousands of dollars in debt to teenagers who often lack the financial literacy to understand what they are signing. No underwriting process checks their ability to repay. Unlike most other loans, student debt cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

The Trump administration should shift its collection stance and seize the opportunity to reform the broken student lending system.

This corrupt setup has enriched colleges, universities, and their administrators while leaving young people burdened with worthless degrees and mountains of debt.

With an entire generation saddled by debt and losing faith in the American dream, the Trump administration should lead a bold reform effort to fix student lending.

A five-step plan

First, Trump should work with Congress to get the federal government out of the student loan business entirely. The government is not a bank. Borrowing money at the federal level only to shovel it out to unqualified borrowers is reckless and unsustainable.

Next, the administration should pressure universities — particularly nonprofits with massive endowments. To maintain their tax-exempt status, these institutions must justify the return on investment for their degrees, hold a stake in the loans, and offer refunds for programs that fail to deliver promised outcomes.

If a student pursues a degree leading to a $50,000 salary, a college should warn them that taking on $200,000 in debt will never produce a worthwhile return. Aligning financial incentives would push schools to prioritize real-world job skills over administrative bloat and ideological indoctrination.

Student loans should also undergo an underwriting process based on both the student’s academic aptitude and the projected market value of the degree they are pursuing. Loans for high-value degrees should be higher than those for low-value ones, forcing colleges to stay competitive. Loans should also be restricted from funding noneducational expenses like spring break trips.

Additionally, student loans should become dischargeable through bankruptcy, just like other forms of personal debt. Colleges that hold a portion of the loan would then share the risk, giving them a stake in student success.

Finally, outstanding student loans must be restructured. Interest payments already made should be applied toward the principal, and students should have the right to seek recourse against universities that saddled them with overpriced, low-value degrees.

Trump’s big opportunity

The Trump administration has already welcomed many young Americans into the center-right coalition. Tackling the real crisis of college debt — an industry siphoning wealth from the next generation while pretending to offer economic opportunity — would show young voters that conservatives stand for their future.

Fixing student lending is not only good politics; it is the right thing to do to preserve the American dream for everyone.

It’s not a ‘power-grab’ — it’s a rescue mission for higher ed



Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people's suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers' unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic's long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

Obstructing Trump’s Agenda Via Injunction Is The New Russia Collusion Hoax

Just as the Russia hoax was weaponized to hamstring the first Trump presidency, the flurry of injunctions is designed to hamstring his second one.