Withholding Federal Funds Is the Right Response to Universities That Ignore Reality
The vast majority of Americans see the inclusion of men in women’s sports as an assault on fairness and reality.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
About the Author
Dr. Colin Wright is the CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand, an evolutionary biology PhD, and Manhattan Institute Fellow. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, Queer Majority, and other major news outlets and peer-reviewed journals.
The Trump administration has suspended $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, citing the school’s past policies allowing a male athlete—Lia Thomas—to compete in women’s swimming. The funding freeze involves discretionary money from the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services and is separate from an ongoing Education Department investigation into Penn’s handling of transgender athletes in its sports programs. While some may argue that this action is politically motivated, the underlying principle is clear: institutions that disregard fairness and biological reality should not expect continued financial support from the federal government.
Penn, for its part, insists that it has simply followed NCAA and Ivy League policies. But that defense falls flat. What good is it to say you’re “following the rules” if the rules themselves are fundamentally corrupt? If the policies are ideological and actively harm women, complying with them isn’t a virtue. The Trump administration’s approach recognizes that financial incentives matter. Universities, like all institutions, respond to funding pressures. By leveraging federal funds, the administration is signaling that schools must prioritize fairness and reality over ideological orthodoxy.
I saw firsthand how this issue resonated with everyday Americans when I attended the NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving Championship at Georgia Tech in 2022, where Lia Thomas won a championship title in women’s swimming. The atmosphere felt uneasy, and after the event I stood outside observing a protest organized by Save Women’s Sports. The overwhelming majority of people leaving the event signaled their agreement—thumbs up, nods of approval, and supportive comments. Only a rare few scowled or made offensive gestures. The scene reinforced what I already knew: the vast majority of Americans see the inclusion of men in women’s sports for what it is—an assault on fairness and reality.
This issue has become an unexpected political flashpoint, not because it’s difficult to understand, but because we know it is so obviously wrong. The denial of biological reality—treating male and female as interchangeable in competitive sports—erodes public trust. We begin to wonder: if politicians are willing to lie about something this absurd, what else are they lying about? How ideological are their other positions? Of course, we have major national concerns, from the economy to foreign policy, and many would argue that “men in women’s sports” is a minor issue by comparison. But it has taken on symbolic weight. It has become a kind of totem: Are you on the side of reality and common sense? Or are you on team ideology over truth? Increasingly, this question functions as a sorting mechanism in our politics.
And when I say “we,” I am not just referring to conservatives or the political right. This issue transcends partisan lines. A recent New York Times/Ipsos poll, conducted in January 2025, found that 79 percent of Americans oppose allowing “transgender female athletes”—biological males—to compete in women’s sports. Only 18 percent support it. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom, a staunch progressive, openly broke with his party’s mainstream stance when discussing the issue with conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. When figures like Newsom start voicing concerns, it’s clear this isn’t some fringe conservative talking point—it’s a widely shared concern.
At its core, this controversy isn’t just about sports. It’s about whether we live in a society governed by truth or one dominated by ideological fantasies. The Trump administration’s decision to suspend funding for Penn sends a clear message: institutions that embrace absurdity will face consequences. And that’s how it should be.
A version of this article first appeared in City Journal on March 24, 2025.
You made it to the end! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…
Watching the professoriate suddenly embrace free speech and expression, political pluralism and tolerance for competing viewpoints after spending the past decade denouncing all these things as bigoted and oppressive impositions that harm the marginalized has taught me a valuable lesson.
The next time anyone wonders why we seem to have an entire generation of young people who believe they have infinite rights and zero responsibilities, that they deserve to have every need and desire state-subsidized and/or paid for by someone else, and who refuse to accept any consequences for their mistakes or acts of malice—well, now we know they were just parroting their professors.
Academia is like a giant kindergarten for spoiled children who spend their lives denouncing society and Mom and Dad for how evil and unfair they are, but who demand that their allowance arrives on time.
Too much time on campus seems to make you allergic to reality.
I agree totally with your concerns about transgender women competing in women’s sports. I agree that Penn Uni’s response was lame. But I cannot agree at all with your supporting the freezing of government money directly because of their policies and behaviour.
This opens a Pandora’s Box of possible bullying, manipulation and protectionism by the government based purely on what it may or may not like. This is a touchstone of authoritarian behaviour which I cannot believe that you would ever support, even as a conservative.
The government provides financial support to universities for a range of reasons and activities. If it doesn’t like one specific action of a university, it can request a please explain or even issue a public admonishment, without resorting to extortion. There are also plenty of other mechanisms in place for altering a university’s stance on an issue without blackmail.