Trumps Freeze on $2B Harvard Grant Begs the Question. Why Are We Subsidizing The Rich?

Why the U.S. Should Stop Subsidizing Elite Universities with Billion-Dollar Endowments

Elite universities in the United States, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, have long been bastions of academic excellence and innovation. However, these institutions also boast astronomical endowments, with some exceeding $500,000 per student. Despite their financial independence, these colleges still benefit from federal subsidies and tax exemptions—a practice that raises critical questions about fairness and priorities in funding education.

Endowments: More Than Enough Wealth

Harvard University, for example, holds an endowment of over $53 billion, making it wealthier than the GDP of some countries. These funds are generated through investments, donations, and alumni contributions, and often grow exponentially over time due to favorable market conditions. While these endowments are used to fund scholarships, research, and campus infrastructure, a significant portion is restricted to specific uses, limiting flexibility for broader spending.

Nonetheless, the sheer size of these endowments highlights the self-sufficiency of these elite institutions. They possess the resources to not only sustain themselves but thrive—making the case for federal subsidies increasingly difficult to justify.

Federal Support: Misplaced Priorities

Each year, elite universities receive substantial federal funds through research grants, work-study programs, and other initiatives, in addition to benefiting from their tax-exempt status as nonprofit organizations. This federal support is intended to drive innovation and provide educational opportunities, but it disproportionately benefits institutions that are already financially flush. Meanwhile, public colleges, community colleges, and smaller universities—often serving lower-income and underprivileged populations—struggle to secure adequate funding.

Redirecting subsidies from wealthy elite universities to underfunded schools and programs could address disparities in higher education and better serve the nation’s needs.

The Case for Accountability

Critics argue that elite universities should be treated like businesses and taxed accordingly. While the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a 1.4% excise tax on the investment income of the wealthiest endowments, this tax is far lower than what other businesses or individuals pay on capital gains. Taxing these institutions at a higher rate—or ending federal subsidies altogether—could generate billions in revenue and encourage these universities to use their wealth more responsibly.

The Ethical Debate

Elite universities often justify their federal funding by pointing to their contributions to research and societal progress. However, the question remains: Should taxpayers be responsible for subsidizing institutions that already have access to vast private wealth? The funding disparity raises concerns about equity in education and whether public dollars are being used to promote the common good.

Conclusion

At a time when educational access and affordability are growing concerns, the United States should reevaluate its policies regarding federal support for elite universities. Institutions with endowments exceeding $500,000 per student clearly have the means to operate independently and should no longer rely on taxpayer funding. Redirecting these resources to support public colleges, community colleges, and underserved populations would create a more equitable education system and ensure federal dollars are spent where they’re needed most.

The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices: The Legacy of Trump's Tariffs

On March 2018, the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, aiming to boost U.S. steel production, reduce dependency on certain foreign suppliers, and strengthen national security. While critics feared long-term price increases, the tariffs led to a shift in trade relationships and a boost in American industry. But behind the economic reasoning was an even bigger concern—America's ability to defend itself in a time of war.

Why Were the Tariffs Implemented?

The steel tariffs were introduced to address several pressing issues in the global steel market:

• Chinese Overcapacity & Dumping: China was producing far more steel than its domestic market required, leading to dumping—selling steel internationally at far below production costs. This practice threatened the viability of U.S. and allied steel industries, pushing prices dangerously low and forcing plants to shut down.

• Structural Barriers in Other Markets: Countries like South Korea and members of the European Union had trade policies and subsidies that created barriers for U.S. steel exports, further disadvantaging American producers.

• National Security Concerns: U.S. planners recognized a larger strategic risk—if China bankrupted steel industries in America and its allied nations, the ability to produce warships, aircraft, tanks, and other military assets could be severely weakened in the event of a conflict.

Safeguarding Industrial Capacity

The tariffs ensured America retained critical manufacturing capabilities rather than becoming dependent on adversarial nations for essential materials. This protectionist approach prevented a potential scenario where the U.S. military might struggle to source steel in a crisis. Beyond trade policy, the initiative encouraged:

• Onshoring steel production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

• Strengthening supply chains with close allies like Canada and Mexico rather than competitors.

• Boosting domestic steel investments to ensure long-term production viability for military and infrastructure needs.

A Short-Lived Price Spike

When the tariffs first took effect, steel prices rose, including the cost of steel rebar—a vital material for construction. However, these price increases were temporary, as the market adjusted to new supply chains and domestic production expanded.

Positive Impacts on Trade & Jobs

Beyond price fluctuations, the tariffs reshaped trade relationships and expanded job opportunities across multiple industries. Some key benefits included:

• Trade Realignment: Instead of relying heavily on Chinese steel, the U.S. increased imports from trusted allies like Canada and Mexico, strengthening economic ties with neighboring trade partners.

• Domestic Steel Production Growth: Many American steel manufacturers ramped up operations, leading to a stronger, more self-sufficient industry.

• Job Creation Beyond Steel: The expansion of U.S. steel production led to the creation of around 6,000 new jobs—not only in steel mills but also in trucking, logistics, warehousing, and support services. This growth extended beyond manufacturing and boosted economic activity in related industries.

A Market Correction

Despite early price increases, the steel market stabilized as global supply chains adapted. By the early 2020s, steel prices—including steel rebar—had dropped below pre-tariff levels, proving that initial inflationary fears were overblown.

Looking Ahead

The steel tariffs demonstrated the power of protectionist policies in revitalizing domestic industries and preserving America’s national security interests. While debates continue about their long-term economic impact, one undeniable result was the strengthening of U.S. steel production, job growth in multiple sectors, and ensured capacity for military manufacturing in case of future geopolitical threats. 

As trade policies evolve, the challenge will be finding the right balance between economic protectionism and global competition.