Public universities across the United States are funneling over $2 million annually into The Conversation, a nonprofit news site publishing overwhelmingly negative content about President Donald Trump. Despite branding itself as a neutral, fact-based platform, the outlet has produced dozens of articles critical of Trump while omitting any favorable coverage, raising serious concerns about ideological bias funded by taxpayer dollars.
An investigation by The College Fix found that taxpayer-supported universities contribute roughly 25 percent of The Conversation’s annual revenue. These public funds support content marketed as educational journalism but frequently used by mainstream media outlets to push politically charged narratives.
Between January 9 and February 14, 2025, The Conversation published 53 articles related to President Trump. Of these, 60 percent were openly negative, while not a single article offered a positive or even neutral portrayal. The topics included attacks on Trump’s 2024 campaign, criticism of his judicial appointments, and skepticism of his economic policies. The investigation found that many of these articles were authored by professors at publicly funded institutions—effectively subsidized by the same universities that fund the platform.
The Conversation claims to operate without political bias and to provide expert analysis from credentialed academics. However, the publication’s editorial record calls that claim into question. Many of the most prominently featured articles appear to reflect left-leaning perspectives, particularly on topics such as climate policy, gender ideology, and political history.
Participating universities include prominent public institutions from nearly every region of the country. While the site discloses university partnerships, it does not make clear how these relationships influence editorial direction. The lack of transparency has prompted scrutiny from conservative watchdog groups and lawmakers concerned about ideological indoctrination in higher education.
Critics argue this funding arrangement violates the public trust by diverting educational resources toward politically motivated content. They also raise questions about whether universities should be sponsoring journalism at all—particularly journalism that appears to serve as a vehicle for partisan messaging.
The report underscores broader concerns about political uniformity in higher education, where conservative viewpoints are often excluded from faculty and media circles. With federal and state budgets under increasing strain, the continued use of public funds to underwrite ideologically driven journalism may face increased legislative opposition.
