That $3 billion? It’s your money. Mine too. All of ours. The universities like Harvard didn’t conjure it out of thin air with their magical diplomas. It came from taxpayer-funded agencies like the NIH, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense—funds meant for national research, development, and defense, not social justice alchemy and racially discriminatory admissions schemes.

Now, Harvard—with its gleaming halls, $51 billion endowment, and history of selling body parts out of the campus morgue (yes, this really happened)—is suing Trump, claiming this proposal is “retaliatory” and a “threat to academic freedom.” Spare us, Crimson. You want to lecture the country on ethics while your staff is peddling human heads like it’s a yard sale?

Let’s clarify the legal terrain here, because someone has to.

Federal research grants are issued through discretionary spending programs. Congress appropriates funds through its power of the purse under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Agencies like the NIH and DoD then issue grants based on merit, relevance, and strategic importance.

But here’s the kicker: there’s no constitutional right for Harvard to receive these funds. They’re not entitled to them like a Social Security check. These are conditional awards, and the government retains the authority to redirect, reprioritize, or terminate them based on public policy goals. Don’t like it? That’s federalism, sweetheart.

And let’s be honest—Harvard’s “research” agenda over the past few years looks more like a DEI fever dream than national defense. When schools start allocating grant funds to enforce race-based admissions policies—which the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—they should lose their public funding. Period. That’s not retaliation. That’s the restoration of Constitutional order.

Let’s talk about the “morality” of Harvard’s outrage. This is the same institution that admitted it racially discriminates against Asian-Americans with stronger academic scores and was caught selling cadaver parts—literal human heads—for profit. Lastly, Harvard has an endowment large enough to self-fund for a century, yet still begs for taxpayer cash like a panhandling aristocrat.

Now they’re upset that a populist president wants to reinvest $3 billion in blue-collar, working-class Americans via trade schools? Cry harder.

This is the ethical crisis of our age: institutions that believe they’re above reproach because they wear the costume of academia. But when you strip away the Latin mottos and marble pillars, what you have is a racket—funded by the American people, turning around to indoctrinate their children, censor their values, and call them bigots for wanting accountability.

Trump’s proposal isn’t just a jab at elitist institutions. It’s a course correction. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most in-demand and well-paying jobs in the coming decade are in skilled trades—not gender theory. Plumbers, electricians, HVAC techs, mechanics, and welders. Real work. Real value. Real Americans.

Mike Rowe (of Dirty Jobs fame) said it best: “We’re lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist.” And we’re doing it while handing $3 billion to Harvard, where the biggest breakthrough last year was identifying “toxic masculinity” in the math department.

Harvard has more money than most nations. If they need funds, they can dig into their $51 billion endowment—generously gifted by alumni who, ironically, earned their fortunes in capitalist America, not communist faculty lounges.

So here’s a thought: If Harvard is so committed to ethics, inclusivity, and social justice, maybe they can start by opening admissions to all Americans based on merit, not melanin. Maybe they can stop accepting government money altogether and stand on their own feet, like any private institution claiming moral superiority. Until then?

They can, respectfully, pound sand.

Because here’s the truth: Taxpayer money isn’t a trust fund for tenured radicals. And America doesn’t need more gender studies dissertations—we need welders, mechanics, builders, farmers, and freedom-loving citizens. Redirecting that $3 billion isn’t retaliation.

It’s redemption.