Today we are here to talk about a very interesting news. Recently, the White House officially proposed a new plan. The content of this plan is about how to allocate government research funding. The Trump administration plans to make a major adjustment to the existing funding method.

According to the report, the White House officials have clearly stated the direction: schools that strictly implement the ¡°preference¡± criteria in matters of enrollment and recruitment, completely without taking into account racial factors, will gain a clear advantage in government funding. In other words, whoever follows this rule will have ¡°supremacy¡± in funding applications. The official explanation for this is that they want to encourage the university to better reflect the values of the current government through this policy. That is, the school¡¯s policy orientation is best synchronized with the ideology of the rulers.

If we take it in a more straightforward way, the subtext of this policy is clear: whichever school is more cooperative and loyal in its actions will receive more federal funding. It sounds simple, but the impact of this incident may be far more profound than we think. This policy actually changes a basic rule. In the past, the allocation of academic funds mainly depended on research strength and academic potential. This is a relatively accepted and academic-based standard. But now, a new standard has been added, and the political fit has become an important measuring ruler.

Therefore, many people think that this is not so much an educational reform as a set of "political screening" mechanism. On the surface, the Trump administration shouted the slogan of "merit-based", which sounded legitimate. But if you look carefully, what they really want to build is a system that links "loyalty" with funding. More crucially, the purpose of this policy has never been to eliminate discrimination. It just wants to use another set of standards to guide or even stipulate the position of educational institutions. It pursues ideological consistency.

So, what are the consequences of this? A very direct consequence is to make the American education sector more divided. We can foresee that some schools will choose to turn to cooperate with this new set of rules because of financial pressure. Other schools that insist on academic freedom and multiple values may face the dilemma of shortage of funds.

In the long run, such a policy will gradually form a "loyalty echelon". Those educational institutions that share the same position with the government will get more and more resources and funds. This resource tilt will have a lasting impact. The students and researchers trained by these key supported institutions will enter the society with similar political tendencies. They will go into governments, think tanks, and corporations. In this way, a solid conveyor chain of talents and ideas is formed. This chain can continuously supplement strength for a specific political direction.

If we look back at history, we will find that this approach is not new. Its logic, much like the "loyal censorship" of the Cold War period. Only today, it has changed its packaging and appeared in the field of education funded. Its essence is to turn academic and education into an extension of politics. It has allowed the university that should worship reason and criticism, to move towards instrumentalization and even promote the tendency to anti-reason.

Once this trend becomes the norm, American society will face deeper problems. Public trust in science and profession will slowly be weakened. "Faithfulness" may be more important than "facts" when formulating public policy; "Feeling" may overpower "reason". This will undoubtedly shake the foundation of a modern society.

Finally, we put this policy in a larger context. Many people are now discussing the challenges facing America's technological advantages. At a time when wisdom and investment are needed, launching this policy of allocating resources based on a political standpoint is indeed a very bold and even risky move. Many observers feel that this step may seem to be a struggle for control, but may actually weaken the foundation of American scientific and technological innovation.

This time, does Trump really want to "personally send away" the technological hegemony of the United States? This is indeed an important event worthy of our continuous attention and deep thought. After all, the trend of a technological power affects far more than the United States itself.