Latest news with #Rockefellers
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
These 'Old Money' Names Embody the Affluent, Quiet Luxury Aesthetic
There's an old saying: money talks, but wealth whispers. Essentially, it insinuates that folks with 'new money' (i.e., the nouveau riche) are flashy and ostentatious with their wealth, sporting extravagant jewelry, flashy cars, and prominent designer labels so that everybody is well aware of their lofty financial status. But 'old money' — the families who have been unimaginably rich for generations — don't feel the need to flaunt it because, well, everybody already knows. And lately, social media (especially TikTok) has been blowing up with the 'old money' aesthetic, sometimes known as 'quiet luxury.' The idea is simple: understated elegance that exudes class and sophistication without screaming for attention. That same aesthetic translates beautifully to baby names. While baby names like Dior or Mercedes are giving in-your-face extravagance, old money baby names are more subtle; they sound more prestigious than pretentious. These timeless, classic baby names are less 'look at my Louis Vuitton' and more 'my parents pay $75K a year for my private elementary school tuition.' Old money names convey high class and high status — not so much trendy as steeped in tradition. Think of the Vanderbilts, the Astors, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies: old money baby names give a distinctive 'this museum/university/library is named after my great-grandfather' vibe. There are no cutesy or 'kreatyve' spellings with old money names, either; these are solid classics that will fit as well on a monogrammed school uniform as they will on the nameplate of an oil tycoon. However, many of these old money picks do lend themselves well to less formal-sounding nicknames in case your offspring desires a more casual vibe. Want even more formality? Combine two for the first and middle — like Brighton Conrad or Victoria Greer! Babies given these quiet luxury baby names were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but they don't need to tell you that; if you know, you know. It's obvious, anyway — from the way they carry themselves, to their impeccable social graces, to the company they keep. Because kids from old money know that it's not the label that matters: it's the legacy. Read on for some of our favorite old money baby names with that distinctively luxurious 'rich kid' vibe. More from SheKnows A Top Baby Name Site's 'Playground Analysis' Just Revealed the 'Real' Most Popular Names of 2024 - & They Aren't What You Think Best of SheKnows At 19, I Broke Up With Social Media – & Chose Myself AP Scores Just Came Out — Here's What to Do If Your Teen's Upset About Theirs Celebrate Freedom With These Perfectly-Patriotic Americana Baby Names Imogen is a Shakespearean gem, created by the Bard himself for Cymbeline. It's believed to be a variant of the Celtic name Innogen, meaning 'maiden' or 'daughter.' This name carries an effortlessly-elegant, literary aura — the type of name you'd imagine belonging to a heroine in a classic English novel. Marshall started as an English occupational surname meaning 'horse servant' or 'keeper of horses,' derived from Old French mareschal. Over time, it evolved into a title of high office (think: military marshal) and a dignified given name with strong Southern old money ties. Schuyler is a gender-neutral pick of Dutch origin meaning 'scholar.' It arrived in America with Dutch settlers and became an influential surname, as in the prominent Schuyler family of early New York. Its understated intellectual vibe and historical roots lend it quiet prestige. You could spell it the more phonetic way for English-speakers — Skyler — but it doesn't quite have the same aristocratic ring to it that way. Conrad is a powerful German name meaning 'brave counsel,' used by Holy Roman Emperors and German nobility throughout the centuries. It carries a serious, weighty feel. Greer just sounds sophisticated, like someone you'd meet at a posh boarding school favored by the who's-who. Surprisingly, it has the same meaning as Gregory — alert or watchful — because it stems from the same root name Γρηγόριος (Gregorios). That transferred into the Scottish surname Gregor, which then morphed into Greer. The more you know! Since it's a surname, it can be used for any gender, but tends to lean feminine in the present day. Felix comes from Latin meaning 'happy' or 'fortunate,' and it has been used as a given name since Roman times. Its crisp, international sound and classic meaning make it a name that transcends trends while still feeling distinguished. An aristocratic and refined choice, Katherine — most often associated with the Greek καθαρός (katharos), meaning 'pure' — has the advantage of multiple nicknames to fit whatever personality your Katherine turns out to have. Kat, Katy, Kathy, Kath, Kate … or you could soften its presence a bit by spelling it with a C, as in Catherine. Parker began as an English surname meaning 'keeper of the park.' It was originally an occupational name for gamekeepers on noble estates. Today, it feels fresh and rooted all at the same time, and works seamlessly as a unisex choice with an upper-crust prep-school vibe. If you're looking for a feminine name with a strong and regal feel, you absolutely cannot go wrong with Victoria. Its meaning (victory, of course!) is clear, and its royal, upper-crust association is unmistakable thanks to the long reign of Queen Victoria. Whether it's spelled with one L or two, Phillip is derived from the Greek Φίλιππος (Philippos), and it has a very unique meaning: 'friend of (or fond of) horses.' It has been used widely throughout history by Macedonian, French, and Spanish kings, and most recently showed up in British royalty by way of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Its deep roots give it a strong, formal feel. Penelope is a timeless Greek name meaning 'weaver.' In mythology, Penelope was the clever and faithful wife of Odysseus, weaving by day and undoing her work by night to keep suitors at bay. Its combination of mythological strength and vintage charm give it a refined and elegant feel. Wells is a sleek, polished English surname with a quite simple meaning: 'spring' or 'stream.' It evokes images of grand countryside estates and is often seen as an understated, stylish choice among modern old-money families. Sloane is an Irish surname meaning 'raider,' though its current reputation is anything but rough. In Britain, the term 'Sloane Ranger' describes the classic old-money set around Sloane Square in London, cementing its posh reputation. It's sleek, modern, and quietly powerful. Hudson is an English surname meaning 'son of Hudde,' with Hudde being a medieval nickname for Hugh or Richard. It carries an outdoorsy, rugged sophistication thanks to namesakes like the Hudson River, yet maintains an urbane, tailored edge. You could also go with Judson, though we think that leans a little more neo-cowboy. Warren is an English surname that gets it roots from the Norman French word warrene, meaning a park or enclosure for animals. It's also the name of famous financier Warren Buffett, which lends a prestigious association. Warrick or Warwick are two possible alternatives that share a similar vibe. While Whitney skews mostly female these days, it can be — and has been — used as a male or a female name. It comes from the Old English phrase for 'white island,' and carries an association with the famous Whitney Museum of American Art, founded by Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney. In America, we favor Pierce; in British, it's more typically seen as Piers. Regardless, this strong name comes from the Medieval form of Peter, meaning 'rock.' Sabine is a French and German name derived from the ancient Italian Sabines, meaning 'a Sabine woman.' Its continental flair and rarity in the U.S. give it an effortlessly-chic, European old-money feel. It reminds us of Sabrina, but fancier. Tierney is an Irish surname meaning 'lord.' Though it's rare as a first name, its strong yet approachable sound — and association with powerful Irish clans — makes it an unexpected yet refined choice. The lovely Margot (remember, don't pronounce the T!) is the French short form of another classy name: Margaret. It's an old name that was popular in the 1930s, nearly dropped off the charts for about 50 years, and is now experiencing a huge surge in popularity; from 2013 to now, it has gone from #943 on the list of most popular baby names to #193. Gregory comes from the Greek name Gregorios, meaning 'vigilant' or 'watchful.' It has a long ecclesiastical history with multiple saints and popes, giving it a dignified, scholarly bearing that feels quietly influential rather than flashy. Adelaide is a regal name of German origin meaning 'noble kind.' It was borne by Queen Adelaide, wife of Britain's King William IV, and the city in Australia was named in her honor. Elegant, vintage, and noble, it's the epitome of refined femininity — and practically screams 'old money.' Brighton is an English place name meaning 'bright town.' Known as a stylish seaside resort favored by British aristocracy for centuries, Brighton carries a breezy sophistication with an undercurrent of old-world glamour. Cecelia (or Cecilia) comes from the Roman family name Caecilius, meaning 'blind.' Despite its not-so-spectacular meaning, the name evokes grace and sophistication thanks to Saint Cecilia, patron of music. Its melodic sound gives it a timeless, vintage charm. Chauncey is an English surname and given name of uncertain meaning, possibly from a Norman place name. In the U.S., it was favored among patrician families in the 18th and 19th centuries, giving it an old-school prep feel that exudes quiet status. Morgan is Welsh, meaning 'sea-born' or 'sea circle.' Originally masculine, it has become widely used for all genders. Its Celtic roots, sleek sound, and banking dynasty associations lend it an undeniably powerful old-money vibe. Winston is an English name meaning 'wine's town,' but its association with the great Sir Winston Churchill lends it an upper-crust air. It feels impeccably polished and intellectual, yet grounded. Charlotte is the French feminine diminutive of Charles, meaning 'free man.' It has long been used by royalty, most notably Queen Charlotte of England (and now, Princess Charlotte too!). Today it remains a classic, with its soft, elegant sound and royal pedigree. Plus, it has lots of cute nicknames like Charlie, Carly, and Lottie. Camden is a Scottish surname meaning 'winding valley,' but it also evokes the artsy-yet-posh neighborhood of Camden in London. It's polished, stylish, and works well for either gender, though it leans masculine in the U.S. Corinne is the French form of the Greek name Korinna, meaning 'maiden.' It was popularized in the English-speaking world by Madame de Staël's 1807 novel Corinne. Its gentle, lyrical sound and French origin give it a sophisticated allure. Forbes is a Scottish surname meaning 'field' or 'district.' As a given name, it exudes old-money vibes thanks to its use among powerful banking and publishing families. It's rare and a little formal-sounding as a first name, lending an exclusive feel. Meredith is a Welsh name meaning 'great ruler' or 'protector of the sea.' Originally used for boys, it has shifted to almost entirely feminine in modern usage — in the U.S., at least. Preston is an English surname meaning 'priest's town.' It carries a stately, collegiate feel — think sprawling green campuses, ivy-covered stone buildings, and crisp tailored blazers. Grant is a Scottish surname meaning 'great' or 'large.' Its straightforward strength and historical use as both surname and given name give it a solid, commanding presence. (If you've ever seen the classic movie Overboard, you might remember that it featured a wealthy character named Grant Stayton III!) Claire is the French form of Clara, meaning 'clear' or 'bright.' Its crisp, simple elegance has made it a timeless classic across generations and social classes, but it always retains an air of graceful sophistication.
Business Times
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Sweden: a socialist paradise overflowing with billionaires
EVERY year I run an analysis of the Forbes rich lists, to spot countries where billionaire wealth is surging as a share of gross domestic product, concentrating in family empires or pooling in 'bad' industries better known for corruption than productivity. My working assumption is that the most extreme outliers face the highest risk of anti-capitalist revolt. This year, the warning signs point above all to Sweden. Though still seen by many progressives as a socialist paradise, Sweden saw billionaire wealth rise by four points to 31 per cent of GDP – the biggest increase, and to the highest level, of the 20 major economies in my analysis. Sweden has 45 billionaires, about 1.5 times more per capita than the US, which is often said to be enjoying a new gilded age. The richest American ever was John D Rockefeller in around 1910, when his fortune surpassed 1.5 per cent of GDP. No American is close to that mark today. The land of latter-day Rockefellers is Sweden, with seven magnates whose wealth as a share of their nation's GDP exceeds that of Rockefeller at his peak. A functioning economy will generate a balanced billionaire class, with more 'good' wealth from industries like tech or manufacturing than bad wealth from sectors such as real estate or commodities. Not that real estate or commodities are inherently bad. But they contribute less to productivity and are less likely to be held in high popular esteem than, say, cars or software. In Sweden, the good billionaires are outnumbered two to one by the bad ones. Despite the country's emergence as an incubator of tech entrepreneurs, only three of them make the Forbes list. At just 12 per cent, the good share of billionaire wealth is third-lowest among my top 10 developed countries. Sweden began to encourage wealth creation after the failure of its post-World War II experiment in unrestrained welfare statism. Heavy taxes were driving celebrities and industrialists out of the country, costing Sweden far more in lost wealth than it raised in revenue. The ensuing financial crises of the early 1990s forced Sweden to rethink its commitment to socialism. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Sweden did not end free education and healthcare, paid for with high income taxes. But it did downsize the welfare state, while abolishing or lowering taxes on wealth, inheritance, corporations and real estate. By the mid-2000s, the super-rich were no longer fleeing. Now, they dominate. Nearly 70 per cent of Sweden's billionaire wealth comes from inheritance, third-highest on my list after France and Germany. Sweden is not the only big welfare state to see a billionaire boom in recent years – France has, too – but each has special imbalances. Sweden's include distorted taxes and easy money. The country taxes capital much less heavily than salaries, and sometimes taxes capital regressively. A yearly homeowner fee is capped under US$1,000 – a big boon for the rich. Sweden has also held interest rates well below the European average, and low rates tend to inflate asset prices, while making it easy for the rich to borrow money to make more of it. In recent elections, political anger has been focused on immigrants and crime, not inequality. Many leading business families are better known for giving away than flaunting their wealth, which helps explain why they have avoided political attacks. But Sweden's composite ranking on my three billionaire metrics is now the worst of the 20 countries I track, and that does not bode well. I started running these analyses in 2010, when the booming fortunes of bad billionaires in India led to a backlash against wealth creation that was enough to hold back business activity in general. Over the next decade, dismal results on the billionaire metrics would presage revolts around the world, including in Chile before mass riots against social inequality erupted in 2019, and in France before the outbreak of 'tax the rich' rallies in 2023. The Paris protests have targeted top billionaires by name. These class revolts can ignite like bush fires, shifting with the political winds. As Swedish economist Johan Norberg has described his home country, this is a nation of 'extremes', prone to ignoring festering problems 'until they become too big to deny and everybody changes their minds at the same time'. Every healthy economy needs to encourage wealth creation, particularly in the most productive sectors, but balance is essential. Too much wealth at the top, concentrated in the hands of too many billionaires of the wrong type, puts a country at risk of political backlashes or policy reversals. Sweden is fertile ground for this kind of unrest now. FINANCIAL TIMES The writer is chair of Rockefeller International. His latest book is What Went Wrong With Capitalism.
Entrepreneur
09-05-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
5 Tips for Building Generational Wealth
America is in the midst of the greatest wealth transfer in history. Over the next decade, an estimated $80 to $100 trillion will pass from baby boomers to their children... This story originally appeared on Due America is in the midst of the greatest wealth transfer in history. Over the next decade, an estimated $80 to $100 trillion will pass from baby boomers to their children and grandchildren. But one critical question remains: Will their heirs be ready for it? A 2023 study by AMG National found that 90% of inherited wealth disappears by the third generation. That sobering statistic is leading more families to ask: How do we build wealth that actually lasts? Financial advisor and author John Nebeker believes the answer lies in adopting a strategy used by some of America's wealthiest dynasties: the Family Bank. In his book The Family Bank: The Key to Generational Wealth, Nebeker shares how families like the Rockefellers used this approach to grow wealth while preparing future generations to be responsible stewards, not entitled heirs. Here are five key tips from Nebeker for building real generational wealth. 1. Rethink Your Estate Plan Traditional estate plans often fall short. They might protect your money from external threats, but they rarely account for internal ones, like mismanagement, entitlement, or family disputes. 'Traditional planning does a lousy job fulfilling people's wishes,' Nebeker said. 'Spendthrift heirs often dissipate whatever is left of the estate.' If you've already set up a plan, don't worry—it may still be adaptable. Talk to your estate attorney or financial planner about aligning your plan with longer-term family wealth goals. 2. Replace Entitlement With Opportunity Through a Family Bank A Family Bank is a nontraditional structure that allows families to retain and grow assets over time while providing support to future generations. Instead of handing out inheritances, the family makes structured loans to heirs to fund things like education, business ventures, or home purchases. 'Families replace gifts with loans, and entitlements with opportunities,' Nebeker said. Many successful families use trusts to manage their Family Bank. Trusts can help reduce estate taxes, ensure legal protection, and maintain generational financial control. 3. Talk About Money—Yes, Really Many parents avoid talking to their kids about inheritance plans. But keeping financial plans secret can do more harm than good. 'Money can drive people apart, but with wise design, it can also bring them closer together,' Nebeker said. 'It's possible—even probable—to make money a unifying force in your family with the right structure.' Start by communicating your goals and expectations. Invite family members to participate in discussions so they understand the plan and its values. 4. Choose the Right People to Manage the Family Bank A Family Bank typically has a 'Bank Board' or trustees who oversee assets and make decisions about loans and investments. These individuals are often family members, but can also include outside advisors. 'The selection of trustees may be the deciding factor in whether a Family Bank is successful,' Nebeker said. 'They need to manage assets, stay connected to the family, and uphold the founding principles.' Regular board meetings and clear communication help keep the structure transparent and effective. 5. Invest in Financial Education for the Next Generation A lasting legacy requires more than money—it requires knowledge. The Family Bank model emphasizes preparing heirs to be financially competent and mission-driven. 'Training young members is a cornerstone responsibility of the board,' Nebeker said. 'When they experience firsthand what it means to borrow, invest, and give responsibly, they are far more likely to succeed.' A well-structured Family Bank can give heirs the tools to grow wealth, give back to their communities, and honor the family's values. Final Thought: You Can Build Wealth That Lasts Generational wealth isn't just about passing down assets—it's about passing down vision, values, and responsibility. With the right strategy, your legacy can empower future generations instead of burdening them. 'The Family Bank is about creating opportunity, not entitlement,' Nebeker said. 'That's the key to wealth that lasts.' Featured Image Credit: Photo by Los Muertos Crew; Pexels The post 5 Tips for Building Generational Wealth appeared first on Due.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Latest billionaire backers of Andrew Cuomo's mayoral run: The Rockefellers
Andrew Cuomo's run for mayor has attracted financial support from some of the country's richest individuals — and the Rockefellers are the latest addition to that list. Three members of the Rockefeller family, which has deep roots in New York politics and ranks as one of the wealthiest dynasties in American history, recently pumped $75,000 into a pro-Cuomo super PAC that's boosting the former governor's campaign for City Hall, filings released this week show. Businessman David Rockefeller, Jr. and his wife, Susan Rockefeller, each gave the PAC, Fix the City, $25,000 on April 24, the records show. Their contributions came after David's younger cousin, environmental lawyer Laurance Rockefeller Jr., chipped in $25,000 to the PAC on April 16. The PAC has raised more than $6.2 million to date, per disclosures. It has already spent more than $2.5 million of that on TV and social media ads touting Cuomo as a tested leader who'd put 'the city back on track.' By law, PACs can raise and spend as much money as they want as long as they don't coordinate with the candidates they're supporting. However, a report in Politico recently said that the restriction hasn't stopped Cuomo's team from using a technique known as 'red-boxing' whereby his campaign's website lists off proposals for ads that can signal what type of messaging the PAC might push. Cuomo campaign spokesperson Rich Azzopardi characterized the website entry to Politico as a 'broad message to voters.' The PAC cash infusion comes at a critical time for Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 amid sexual harassment accusations he denies. Last month, the Campaign Finance Board denied Cuomo's request for nearly $3 million in public matching funds due to paperwork errors. In addition to donating to the PAC, Rockefeller family members have contributed directly to Cuomo's campaign. Laurance Rockefeller, Jr., a registered Republican who once mounted a failed bid for U.S. Senate, gave $2,100, the max legal amount, to Cuomo's campaign on March 1, the day he launched his mayoral run. He tried giving another $2,000 to Cuomo's campaign on March 12, but that contribution was returned due to the donation cap, records show. Another Rockefeller family member, Lucy Rockefeller Waletzky, gave $2,100 to Cuomo's campaign on March 1, too, records show. A rep for Rockefeller Capital Management, where David Rockefeller Jr. serves on the board, didn't return a request for comment. Fix the City spokeswoman Liz Benjamin said the PAC 'is gratified by the support we continue to receive from a growing number of donors.' The Rockefellers are among the most storied families in the country, with its patriarch, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, widely seen as the world's first billionaire. Nelson Rockefeller, Laurance Jr.'s uncle, served as governor of New York for more than a decade, the same job both Cuomo and his father, Mario Cuomo, held. Rockefellers, including Laurance Jr., donated to several of Cuomo's gubernatorial campaigns, too, a Daily News review of contribution records found. The Rockefeller cash for Cuomo's mayoral bid is part of a wave of financial support billionaires are providing the ex-gov as he vies to replace the embattled Mayor Adams. Other business titans who have flocked to Cuomo include Bill Ackman, the Trump-supporting hedge fund manager, who gave Fix the City $250,000 in April. Alice Walton, the billionaire Walmart heiress, donated another $100,000 last month, and scores of executives in the real estate and financial sectors have given even more to pro-Cuomo efforts. Cuomo is polling as the favorite to win June's Democratic mayoral primary. Some of his primary opponents have argued his reliance on billionaire donors is problematic. 'Andrew Cuomo: Trump-praised, scandal-ridden, billionaire-backed,' reads a text blast sent to voters last month by New Yorkers for Lower Costs, a super PAC that backs Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's mayoral run. In contrast to Fix the City, the pro-Mamdani PAC is struggling to raise money, having pulled in just over $64,000 as of the end of April, filings show.
Boston Globe
19-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
How universities became so dependent on the federal government
Now this mutually beneficial bargain has started to unravel. President Trump and many Republicans say they will use the threat of deep funding cuts to rein in out-of-control progressive activism on campus, which they believe has driven universities away from their mission to educate and mold better citizens. With confidence in higher education waning among Americans, the president also believes he has public opinion on his side. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But as the Trump administration starts cutting -- including an announcement it would pull $2.2 billion in multiyear grants from Harvard University this month -- the future of the partnerships is anything but certain. Advertisement American universities spent $60 billion in federal money on research and development in fiscal year 2023 alone. That's more than 30 times as much as what they spent in the early 1950s, adjusted for inflation, when the research university system was just beginning to grow into the vast industry it is today. Advertisement There is no other system like it in the world, in part because of the sprawling, decentralized nature of American higher education. Unlike many other countries, the United States never had a national university. And the founders left matters of education to the states. It was inside university labs where military radar was developed in the 1940s, the code for Google's search engine was written in the 1990s, and wonders of the universe are still being discovered. Dismantling the system -- as Trump and many conservatives seem intent on doing -- could partially rewind the clock to when the federal government largely left research in the hands of the private sector. The work was done at foundations created by wealthy families such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers or in the laboratories of DuPont, Westinghouse, and other corporations. The genesis of the system that exists today was World War II and the Great Depression -- crises so large, they required the kind of money only Washington could spend. Roger Geiger, an emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in a 1993 history on American research universities that political leaders knew nothing short of a large-scale undertaking was needed to mobilize and incentivize the best scientists. 'And the fate of the democratic nations of the world might very well depend on its effectiveness,' Geiger wrote in his book, 'Research and Relevant Knowledge.' At first, there was some resistance to funding academic research on such a large scale. And anti-New Deal Republicans were opposed in principle to the further expansion of a federal government they already saw as too big and powerful. But the race to beat the Nazis to an atomic bomb wiped away much of that reluctance. Advertisement The Manhattan Project, the biggest research endeavor of the war, with a cost of $2 billion (more than $30 billion in today's dollars), grew out of work by scientists at schools including the University of California Berkeley; Columbia University; and the University of Chicago. 'We all know this, thanks to Christopher Nolan,' said Christopher Loss, a professor at Vanderbilt University who studies higher education, referring to the director of 'Oppenheimer,' the 2023 film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who oversaw the development of the bomb. 'But that's the defining moment,' Loss added, 'the touchstone of the research economy.' The government-academia partnership spawned other military innovations, such as the radio-powered bomb fuse that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins spends more federal money than any other university on research: $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2023. About half of that came from the Department of Defense. Deprived of the resources to pursue big ideas, Loss said, the American research university will cease to function as an institution 'geared toward the discovery of -- not just the preservation of -- knowledge.' After the war, policymakers in Washington were eager to replicate the formula in other fields such as medicine. It was, Geiger said, 'a seller's market for research.' But not everyone was comfortable with the growing reliance on money from the government. Scientists worried about interference from federal agencies and the possibility that their work could be compromised. Military personnel sometimes viewed academia with suspicion. More broadly, professors and university leaders had concerns about becoming beholden to the government. 'I think academic freedom in those days was thought to be perhaps threatened by new funding sources from government -- perhaps presciently,' said John Tomasi, president of the Heterodox Academy, a nonpartisan organization that promotes the exchange of more diverse viewpoints in academia. Advertisement But the money was hard to resist. Student enrollment soared at many institutions. Faculties doubled and tripled in size. Universities provided the human and intellectual capital to power some of the most important Cold War initiatives, including the development of the hydrogen bomb -- hundreds of times more powerful than the first-generation Manhattan Project bomb -- and the space race that was set off when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the world's first human-made satellite. Research funding still flowed primarily to a small number of elite institutions in the 1960s. So in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that would spread the wealth around. 'We want to find excellence and build it up wherever it is found so that creative centers of excellence may grow in every part of the nation,' the order declared. But the social upheaval of the Vietnam War era started to alter the perception of academia in the eyes of many Americans. Student-led protests against the war became deeply unpopular. The era of Republican dominance that followed was less hospitable to higher education. Research funding plateaued as conservative politicians asked why taxpayers were subsidizing institutions they saw as hotbeds for anti-American radicalism. But one bipartisan reform helped stimulate a boom in the emerging fields of biomedicine, computer science, and engineering. In 1980, Congress changed the law to transfer patent rights for federally funded research to the universities from the federal government. The idea was to apply conservative free-market principles to the academic research sector, allowing universities to profit from licensing the innovations created in their labs. It led to a transformation in academia, ushering in what scholars have described as the current era of 'Big Science.' Advertisement Today, all that money has made universities a target of the Trump administration. Many of the universities receiving the most from the federal government for research and development are among dozens of schools under review by the Trump administration, over allegations they are not doing enough to prevent and punish antisemitism. Of the 25 schools that received the most federal funding in fiscal year 2023, at least 16 are under investigation. The 10 colleges receiving additional focus from a government task force on antisemitism spent a combined $9.3 billion in federal money on research and development -- roughly 15% of what colleges nationwide spent from federal sources. The Trump administration doesn't appear to be finished. Although Ivy League institutions have borne the brunt of the retaliation, public universities make up roughly half of the broader list of schools under review. They include the University of Washington; the University of California San Diego; and the University of Michigan. And they all have a lot of money on the line: Each spent more than $1 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2023. This article originally appeared in
