The End of Harvard's Tax Scam and NPR's Pitiful Propaganda
Cutting through the establishment’s smoke and mirrors, one sacred cow at a time.
Smashing Elites, Silencing Propaganda, and Making Progress in the Trade War
Welcome to another Sovereign Sunday, where we cut through the establishment’s smoke and mirrors, one sacred cow at a time. Lightning version this week as there’s too many stories to give each their proper due. Will hit a couple of highlights and then flag a few others worth watching.
This week, President Trump unleashed three seismic gut punches that expose the rot in our institutions and the media’s complicity in propping them up. From dismantling Harvard’s tax-exempt privilege to starving the left’s propaganda machines at NPR and PBS, to outfoxing the doomsayers with his tariff triumph, Trump’s curb stomping The System where it hurts. These aren’t just policies—they’re a battle cry for American sovereignty. Buckle up patriots. Here’s why this matters.
Harvard’s Tax Dodge Gets Trumped: A Win for Accountability
First, Trump took a sledgehammer to the ivory tower, targeting Harvard University’s tax-exempt status—a centuries-old scam that’s let this elitist fortress dodge billions in taxes while peddling ideological poison. On May 2, 2025, Trump roared on Truth Social, “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” This follows his administration’s freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grants to the Ivy League giant, a move Harvard arrogantly dismissed, claiming it’s untouchable.
Let’s be clear: Harvard, with its $53.2 billion endowment, isn’t a charity—it’s a hedge fund with a lecture hall, churning out Marxist foot soldiers while fleecing taxpayers. Trump’s logic is airtight: tax-exempt status is for public servants, not political machines pushing “terrorist-inspired sickness” like antisemitism or radical leftism. Harvard’s been caught red-handed, failing to protect Jewish students during Gaza-related protests and doubling down on DEI policies that swap scholarship for racial dogma.
The elite are clutching their pearls, with Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, whining that this threatens their “educational mission.” Spare us. If that mission is charging $90,000 a year to indoctrinate kids with anti-American drivel, it’s time they paid taxes like the rest of us. The IRS is already circling, and the Bob Jones University precedent—where tax-exempt status was yanked for racial discrimination—proves this is legal and doable. The establishment screams “free speech attack,” but this isn’t about silencing Harvard—it’s about making them play by the same rules as every American business.
This is sovereignty in action. By targeting Harvard’s gilded privilege, Trump’s sending a message: no institution is above the people. Imagine the billions that could fund schools, hospitals, or roads instead of Harvard’s next diversity seminar. This isn’t just a win against one university—it’s a warning to every elite enclave that’s forgotten who they serve.
Remember one of Kimelman’s core maxims - incentives almost always drive outcomes.
Perhaps if Harvard has to pay the same egregious marginal tax rates the rest of us are saddled with, they’ll stop churning out graduates who are hard core Marxists as the next generation of leadership.
Defunding NPR and PBS: Starving the Left’s Propaganda Beast
Next, Trump pulled the plug on the left’s taxpayer-funded megaphones, issuing an executive order on May 1, 2025, to end federal funding for NPR and PBS. These outlets, which siphon roughly $535 million a year through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, have long hidden their bias behind a “public service” facade. Trump and most Americans are not buying it, blasting them as “left-wing propaganda” and cutting their lifeline.
About time. Born in an era of three TV channels and rotary phones, NPR and PBS are now bloated mouthpieces for coastal groupthink, peddling narratives that vilify conservatives and sanitize demonic globalists. Remember NPR’s glowing take on the 2020 riots as “mostly peaceful” or PBS’s endless “systemic racism” documentaries? These aren’t journalists—they’re activists with microphones, bankrolled by your taxes. If Ira Glass and Big Bird can’t survive without federal handouts, let them beg private donors like every other ideological outlet.
The left’s apoplectic, with PBS CEO Paula Kerger calling the move “blatantly unlawful.” But for millions of Americans, it’s a victory. Why should taxpayers subsidize outlets that sneer at 2/3 of the country?
Trump’s order, though facing legal hurdles (CPB funding is locked two years out), is a shot across the bow. It’s not just about saving money—it’s about dismantling the state’s role in narrative control. Forcing NPR and PBS to compete in the free market is sovereignty at its finest: public resources belong to the people, not ideologues.
Tariff Triumph: Outsmarting the Media’s Lies and China’s Grip
Finally, let’s shred the biggest media con of the month: the hysteria over Trump’s tariffs. Since “Liberation Day” in early April, when Trump slapped 10-20% tariffs on all imports and a 60% hammer on Chinese goods, the press has been in meltdown mode. The New York Times screamed “Trump’s Trade War Sends Global Markets Reeling” (April 10, 2025), Bloomberg wailed about “The Biggest Rout April Has Ever Seen,” and CNN predicted soaring inflation and consumer pain.
They popped champagne in newsrooms, certain the rubes would finally learn to love globalism. Fast-forward to May 2, 2025: the S&P 500 erased all of April’s losses, climbing from 4900 to 5700, logging its longest winning streak since 2004. MarketWatch called it a “full recovery,” the Wall Street Journal marveled at a “breathtaking rally,” and Investopedia noted stocks were back to pre-tariff levels. Where’s the Times’ front-page mea culpa? Where’s Bloomberg’s retraction? Crickets. The meltdown got all-caps hysterics; the rebound, a whisper—if that. This isn’t journalism—it’s psychological warfare.
Here’s the truth the media won’t touch: Trump’s tariffs are unquantifiable as of yet, and may be a strategic masterstroke. Japan’s in “positive and constructive” trade talks, Britain’s scrambling for a deal, and re-shoring is surging. Nvidia just committed to half a trillion here at home, Kimberly-Clark inked a $2 billion U.S. expansion, Hyundai pledged $21 billion for domestic auto production, and manufacturers from Ohio to Texas are scouting factory sites.
Every “Made in U.S.A.” widget starves China’s export-driven economy, which is wobbling as re-shoring and trade deals shift the global balance. The National Institute of Standards and Technology projects a manufacturing boom as firms prioritize resilient supply chains over Beijing’s cheap labor and spy-friendly hardware.
Trump’s not just winning a trade war—he’s dismantling decades of globalist dogma that enriched China at America’s expense. Tariffs aren’t a tax on consumers; they’re a cover charge for access to the world’s richest market. Nations are lining up for trade deals to avoid exclusion, and U.S. jobs are coming home. The media’s silence on this recovery isn’t incompetence—it’s malice. They want you scared, not empowered. But the truth is undeniable: America’s back, and Trump’s leading the charge.
PS: Quick victory lap for SovSun’s market timing and calls during the meltdown at the beginning of the month. All four of the companies mentioned are up between 40-60% in less than 3 weeks. If you played along, consider taking some money off the table. Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
The Common Thread: Sovereignty Restored
From Harvard’s tax dodge to NPR’s propaganda to China’s trade scams, Trump’s moves share one goal: restoring American sovereignty. He’s holding elite institutions accountable, starving state-backed narratives, and rewriting economic rules to prioritize you, the American people. Harvard must answer to the public. NPR and PBS must survive without your taxes. Foreign exporters must pay a toll or build on U.S. soil.
The establishment calls this “authoritarian.” Nonsense. It’s the essence of self-governance: we tax what we choose, fund what we value, and decide who profits off our market. The market’s creeping back to highs. Ivy League oligarchs are sweating. Public broadcasters are scrambling. China’s reeling. And it’s only Week 18.
This is what sovereignty looks like—a government that fights for its citizens, not the global elite. Trump’s trifecta is a rejection of their control, a blueprint for a stronger, self-reliant America. The media’s lies can’t hide the truth forever. The renaissance has just begun.
And for those unhappy with the direction or the pace of progress, just remember what the other option was.
NATO Nations - Defending Democracy™️!
In the hallowed halls of Western capitals, where NATO flags fly high and the sermon of democracy echoes, a curious spectacle unfolds. Nations that lecture the world on the virtues of free elections and the will of the people—while pointing fingers at Putin’s Russia as a tank-rolling dictatorship—seem to have a peculiar way of showcasing their democratic zeal.
From Romania to Ukraine, Germany to Brazil, the self-proclaimed guardians of liberty are banning opposition parties, canceling elections, and silencing popular candidates, all in the name of “saving democracy.” The irony is as thick as a Berlin fog, and the implications are chilling. Welcome to the West’s democracy paradox, where freedom is preserved by locking it in a cage.
Let’s start with Romania, an EU and NATO darling, where the Constitutional Court annulled the 2024 presidential election’s first round, disqualifying far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, who surged to the lead with grassroots support. Why? Alleged Russian interference via TikTok, they claim, with whispers of undeclared funding and extremist views. The evidence remains murky, yet the court’s swift action—postponing the vote to May 2025—sparked protests and cries of judicial overreach. If democracy means the people’s choice, why rob Romanians of theirs?
Ukraine, under siege and martial law, offers another stark example. Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, President Zelenskyy has suspended elections and banned 11 pro-Russian parties, including the Opposition Platform for Life, which held 44 parliamentary seats. National security, they argue, demands unity against Moscow’s influence. But when dissent is outlawed and elections are shelved, what remains of the democracy Ukraine aspires to join in the EU?
Across the Rhine, Germany’s establishment is sharpening its knives for the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a far-right party polling at 20% and fresh off a second-place finish in recent elections. Labeled “extremist” by the domestic intelligence agency, AfD faces calls for a ban, with new surveillance powers granted to the state to monitor its moves. The real extremism, many argue, lies not in AfD’s platform but in the open-border policies they oppose—policies that have fueled crime and cultural clashes, driving voters to the right. Banning a party with millions of supporters isn’t democracy; it’s tyranny dressed in bureaucratic garb.
Moldova, an EU hopeful, joined the fray in 2023, banning the Şor Party for alleged Russian ties and “destabilizing activities.” Led by fugitive oligarch Ilan Şor, the party held parliamentary seats and a loyal base, yet the Constitutional Court erased it from the board. National security or political consolidation? Critics see a pattern: neutralize opposition, claim foreign meddling, and tighten the grip on power.
France, the cradle of liberté, flirts with its own version of this game. Marine Le Pen, the National Rally’s firebrand, faces a potential ban from the 2027 presidential race, fueled by ongoing legal battles over hate speech and EU fund misuse. A specious criminal prosecution (sound familiar Letitia?), the mere prospect of sidelining a candidate with massive popular support—Le Pen led polls in 2024—raises eyebrows. If the people want her, who are the courts to say otherwise?
Beyond Europe, Brazil’s democracy dances on a similar tightrope. In 2023, former President Jair Bolsonaro was barred from office until 2030 for questioning the 2022 election’s integrity, while his supporters faced arrests. In 2018, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was disqualified for corruption (later overturned), fueling cries of judicial weaponization. When leading candidates are erased from ballots, democracy starts to look like a rigged game.
And let’s not forget the United States, where 2024 saw Democrats, prosecutors, and even would-be assassins allegedly targeting the leading opposition figure in a bid to “protect democracy.” Multiple attempts to disrupt the electoral process—from legal maneuvers to darker schemes—suggest a desperation to control the outcome, not empower the voter.
What unites these cases is a troubling mantra: to save democracy, we must limit or destroy it.
The West’s elites, cloaked in the rhetoric of freedom, seem to believe the only way to preserve the system is to ban popular opponents, cancel inconvenient elections, and label dissent as extremism. It’s a playbook that reeks of global Marxism, where the “greater good” justifies silencing the people’s voice. If Putin is the dictator they fear, why are NATO’s democracies borrowing his tactics?
The hypocrisy is glaring. These nations condemn authoritarianism abroad while practicing a softer version at home, all under the guise of protecting liberal values. But democracy isn’t saved by suppressing choice; it’s strengthened by trusting the people, even when their choices unsettle the establishment. Germany should reverse its surveillance overreach and let AfD face the voters. Romania and Ukraine must hold elections, not excuses. France and Brazil should let their candidates compete, not cower behind court rulings.
The West stands at a crossroads. Will it honor the sovereignty of its people, or will it slide into a new kind of tyranny—one that bans, cancels, and controls, all while waving the flag of democracy? The answer lies in the courage to let the people choose, no matter how messy or inconvenient the outcome. Anything less is a betrayal of the very freedom we claim to defend.
Sovereignty for the Win
No surprise to readers of this dispatch, but a horse named ‘Sovereignty’ triumphed over runner-up ‘Journalism’ in yesterday’s Kentucky Derby. The simulation is truly beautiful. 😉
What I’m Watching and Reading…
The guys running the White House social media channel deserve a raise. Live video below. Very relaxing!
Victor Davis Hanson on the Immigration Fiasco
Very interesting tweet from someone I have never heard of. Worth a read.
Best of Twitter
Memetic Warfare
Parting Words…
That’s it for this week folks. Hope you enjoyed!
If these tariffs hold my business will lose about $20k profit in medical supplies I import via Canada that are manufactured in China. But you know what? I’m here for it.
As always, a banger. My only suggestion is that you should eliminate using the leftist propaganda term "far right" to describe political parties that are fully mainstream (or historically so) in their platform. The left has spent decades controlling the language to control the debate, and its done great damage.