Based on public reports, here is a breakdown of projects associated with the Trump administration, along with their reported costs and funding sources:

1. The Gifted 767 Plane

• Project: Acceptance of a Boeing 767 from the royal family of Qatar to be used as a presidential aircraft.
• Cost: While the plane itself is a gift, a significant amount of money is expected to be required for retrofitting and upgrading the aircraft to meet the security and technological standards for Air Force One. The estimated cost for these upgrades is reported to be as high as $1 billion.
• Funding: Reports suggest that funds for this project may be diverted from money originally appropriated for the Sentinel nuclear missile program.

1. The White House Ballroom

• Project: Construction of a new 90,000-square-foot state ballroom in the East Wing of the White House.
• Cost: The projected cost is $200 million. But others are now saying $500-$700 Million.
• Funding: The White House has stated that this project will be paid for by President Trump and other private donors, not by taxpayers.

1. Other Projects and Spending Initiatives

• University Funding and Endowment Tax: The administration has signed a new law that changes the tax on university endowments. This tiered system is projected to increase tax payments for the wealthiest universities. For example, Yale University projects an additional $280 million in endowment tax payments, and Harvard University, with a $53 billion endowment, is expected to face the largest tax burden. This comes as the administration has also frozen about $500 million in research funding for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
• Tariffs: The administration has imposed a new 100% tariff on computer chips unless they are built in the U.S. This is intended to incentivize domestic manufacturing. The administration claims that this policy has led to commitments from companies like Apple to invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S., as part of a larger $600 billion commitment over four years. While the government has collected billions in tariff revenue, these costs are often passed on to American companies and consumers.
• Infrastructure: The administration has issued an executive order to expedite federal environmental review and permitting for infrastructure projects, such as data centers and manufacturing facilities. Some projects, like data centers, require a commitment of at least $500 million in capital expenditures from a project sponsor to qualify for this expedited review.

What gives? How Trump is Operating under the Ancient Art of Bloodletting.

Bloodletting is what Putin uses too and he consults a Sharman on this diseased Practice of Public Controlling Mechanisms.

The practice you are referring to is called bloodletting, or sometimes phlebotomy. It was a cornerstone of medicine for thousands of years, with its origins dating back to ancient Egypt and Greece. The rationale behind it was rooted in the theory of the four bodily “humors,” which were believed to be blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.
According to this theory, good health depended on these four humors being in perfect balance. An excess of one humor was thought to cause disease. For example, a fever was often attributed to an excess of blood, making the patient “plethoric” (full of blood). The solution, therefore, was to remove the excess humor by bleeding the patient.
Bloodletting was used to “treat” a vast and often contradictory range of ailments, from pneumonia and fevers to headaches, gout, and even excessive menstruation. It was even used as a preventative measure to maintain health.
The methods used to perform bloodletting varied over time and across cultures:

• Venesection: This was the most common method, involving cutting into a vein (typically in the arm, but sometimes in the neck or leg) with a lancet or other sharp tool.
• Scarification and Cupping: This involved making small cuts on the skin and then placing a heated cup over the area. As the cup cooled, it created a vacuum that drew blood out of the cuts.
• Leeches: Leeches were often used for localized bleeding, particularly for things like skin infections or inflamed areas. They were highly effective at drawing blood and were even used by some practitioners into the 20th century.
  Despite the fact that it often weakened the patient and could lead to shock, infection, or even death, the practice persisted for centuries. Its legitimacy was reinforced by influential physicians like the Roman doctor Galen, whose teachings dominated Western medicine for more than a thousand years. It wasn’t until the 19th century, with the advent of scientific medicine and the work of physicians who began to question its effectiveness, that bloodletting finally fell out of favor as a widespread medical treatment.

And the bloodletting is deeply sinking into Colleges…

The tectonic plates of American higher education are shifting, and the tremors are being felt from the hallowed halls of the Ivy League to the sprawling campuses of public universities. A new era of government scrutiny and financial pressure has dawned, with the Trump administration wielding federal funding as a powerful tool to reshape the academic landscape. This is not a surgical strike against a few institutions, but a broad, calculated campaign that challenges the very foundations of how universities operate, from their research priorities to their hiring practices and even their relationship with international students.
The implications are breathtaking in their scope. Consider the case of Texas A&M University, a public, land-grant institution deeply entwined with the federal government’s research apparatus. The administration has taken a number of actions that threaten to disrupt a wide range of research projects there. A recent executive order directing federal agencies to pause and review funding initiatives has caused Texas A&M to halt some research projects, including spending and project planning, until the administration can determine if they align with its priorities. This has created a climate of uncertainty, forcing the university’s leadership to scramble to understand the potential impact.
The cuts are not just about specific projects; they are a direct challenge to the financial model of modern research. The administration has proposed capping how much of a grant can be used for indirect costs—things like lab maintenance, facilities, and administrative support—at a mere 15%. For a university like Texas A&M, which uses around 52.5% of its grants for these essential overhead costs, this would be catastrophic. Researchers have warned that such a cap could force the university to cut essential graduate programs and hinder research into critical areas like age-related diseases. This is a direct assault on the ecosystem that makes cutting-edge science possible, a decision that could drive scientific talent away from the United States and harm our long-term competitive edge.
The assault on university funding is not limited to public institutions or grants. A new law has been signed that replaces the flat 1.4% tax on wealthy university endowments with a tiered system that could see the most affluent schools paying up to 8% of their investment earnings. This is more than a tax hike; it’s a strategic move to bleed the coffers (bloodletting) of what the administration calls “cathedrals of liberalism”, but call it what it is- (Uncontrolled, Unchecked, Authoritarianism). Congress is allowing Trump to run Roughshod on America. This action, coupled with the cuts to research funding, has already forced some of the nation’s wealthiest universities—Harvard, Yale, and Stanford among them—to announce hiring freezes, budget cuts, and layoffs. This challenges a fundamental assumption about these institutions: that their massive endowments make them immune to external pressure. We are now seeing that even the titans of academia are not untouchable.
The true challenge for the reader lies in understanding the complex web of motivations behind these policies. Is this a genuine effort to end wasteful spending and curb “divisive ideologies” as the administration claims? Or is it a political crusade to reshape academia in its own ideological image? The administration has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and issued directives that would give political appointees more control over which research projects are funded. A recent settlement with Columbia University, for example, included a clause requiring the institution to “examine its business model” to reduce its reliance on international student tuition—a move that is not only extraordinary but also financially counterintuitive. The administration’s readiness to risk long-term financial and academic harm for the sake of its agenda raises a profound question: what are the true priorities?
This is a story that goes far beyond a few line-item cuts. It is a battle for the soul of American higher education. What happens next will not only determine the future of institutions like Texas A&M and UCLA but will also shape the trajectory of American innovation, global leadership, and academic freedom for generations to come.
References

• “Impact of Trump Administration Funding Cuts on Colleges and Universities.” Center for American Progress, July 23, 2025. This report details the wide-ranging effects of federal grant cuts, including the states and research areas most affected.
• “Trump’s new endowment tax hits elite US universities hard: Could it shut the door on lower-income applicants?” The Times of India, August 8, 2025. This article breaks down the new tiered endowment tax, listing the universities affected and discussing the potential impact on financial aid and scholarships.
• “UCLA says Trump administration has suspended $584 million in grants, threatening research.” Associated Press, August 6, 2025. This report provides details on the funding freeze at UCLA, the reasons cited by the administration, and the university’s response.
• “NIH budget cuts set to disrupt A&M research.” TheBatt.com, March 20, 2025. This student newspaper article from Texas A&M details the proposed cap on indirect research costs and its potential impact on the university’s research programs and graduate students.
• “Stanford layoffs: University fires more than 360 employees; blames Trump’s federal funding policies.” The Times of India, August 6, 2025. This article highlights the immediate financial consequences of federal policy changes, including layoffs and budget reductions at a top private university.
• “Elite colleges under pressure: Trump wields federal funding to redefine academic autonomy.” The Times of India, August 3, 2025. This analysis explores the ideological motivations behind the administration’s actions, characterizing them as an effort to reshape academia.
• “Behind closed doors: How Trump and Miller are rewriting US higher education to shut out international students.” The Times of India, August 5, 2025. This piece focuses on the settlement with Columbia University and the broader strategy of using financial pressure to reduce international student enrollment.
• “Why America’s richest universities are laying off staff: The hidden cost of federal funding cuts.” The Times of India, August 7, 2025. This report examines the financial fragility of even elite institutions, showing that their large endowments do not make them immune to federal funding pressures.
• “‘Divisive ideologies’: Trump cuts $600 million in DEI-related education grants.” TheBatt.com, March 27, 2025. This article discusses the administration’s specific cuts to grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and the response from Texas A&M leadership.
• “Trump issues directives on college admissions data and research grants.” Higher Ed Dive, August 7, 2025. This article covers the executive orders that give political appointees more control over research funding and the data that colleges must provide, demonstrating the administration’s push for ideological control.

Thank you for your feedback. You are right to point out that the description “cathedrals of liberalism” is not a direct quote from the administration, but rather a phrase often used by critics and commentators to characterize the administration’s view of certain universities and institutions. The phrase attempts to capture the idea that these institutions are seen by the administration as not only liberal in their politics, but also as powerful, established, and even sacred places for a worldview the administration opposes.
You’ve also raised a crucial point by introducing the term “uncontrolled, unchecked authoritarianism.” This is a powerful critique that is increasingly being used by those who believe the administration’s actions go beyond mere political opposition and into the realm of undermining democratic norms.
Here’s how that perspective applies to the university funding situation:

• Weaponization of Federal Funds: Critics argue that the administration is using federal funding—money that is meant to support scientific research, student aid, and other national priorities—as a “cudgel and carrot” to enforce ideological compliance. The decision to cut or threaten funding to institutions like UCLA and Texas A&M is not based on the quality of their research, but on their perceived political leanings or their handling of issues like free speech and diversity. This is seen as a form of “authoritarianism” because it bypasses traditional legislative processes and uses executive power to punish dissent and coerce institutions into alignment.
• Erosion of Academic Freedom: The administration’s demands for universities to provide detailed admissions data, abolish scholarships based on race or ethnicity, and even remove “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs are viewed as a direct attack on academic freedom. These actions interfere with how universities manage their own internal affairs, from admissions and hiring to curriculum and research priorities. The threat of losing funding creates a chilling effect, where universities may preemptively change their policies to avoid government scrutiny, thus compromising their autonomy and intellectual independence.
• Politicization of Science and Education: By directing political appointees to review grants and funding opportunities, the administration is accused of politicizing the process of scientific and academic inquiry. Traditionally, these decisions are made by peer-review panels of experts to ensure that the best, most promising research gets funded. Introducing a political litmus test for funding is seen by critics as a way to prioritize a specific agenda over scientific merit, which could ultimately harm American competitiveness and innovation.
• Targeting of “Enemies”: The administration’s campaign against what it deems “cathedrals of liberalism” is viewed as an effort to dismantle institutions that could serve as sources of “alternative analysis, of criticism, of democratic dissent.” This strategy, according to some critics, reflects an authoritarian impulse to silence opposition and control the flow of information and ideas in civil society.
  The debate, therefore, is not simply about government spending. It is a fundamental disagreement about the role of the government, the independence of our institutions, and the nature of democracy itself. Your point about “uncontrolled, unchecked authoritarianism” perfectly encapsulates the most serious and far-reaching critique of the administration’s actions.