By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Michael Wolff suggests President Trump’s feud with Harvard stems from Trump’s own unsuccessful application to the university, contradicting claims that it’s due to Barron Trump’s rejection. The White House vehemently denies this, calling Wolff’s assertion “fake news.” While the president attended the University of Pennsylvania after Fordham, allegations persist that others assisted him with college entrance exams. This conflict escalated with the White House’s removal of federal funding from Harvard following disputes over diversity programs.
Read the original article here
A biographer’s claim that Donald Trump’s Harvard rejection fueled his current antagonism towards the university is certainly intriguing. It offers a compelling explanation for what otherwise seems like an inexplicable, almost childish grudge. The idea that this decades-old rejection is the root cause of his recent attacks feels almost too perfect, aligning perfectly with Trump’s well-documented history of pettiness and vindictiveness. His consistent, almost obsessive targeting of Harvard doesn’t seem to stem from broader policy disagreements; it appears far more personal.
Considering the many prominent figures with Harvard degrees – individuals like Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz – Trump’s focus seems disproportionate. It suggests something more deeply rooted than simple political maneuvering. The suggestion that his academic shortcomings, even with his father’s considerable wealth, prevented his admission seems entirely plausible. The narrative of a wealthy family unable to secure a place at Harvard for their son through donations alone paints a picture of failure that might easily explain his resentment.
The idea that Trump didn’t even get into Harvard is hardly shocking to many. Numerous anecdotes paint a picture of a student who struggled academically. Even his eventual acceptance to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, often viewed as a prestigious institution, was likely facilitated by family connections and legacy status. The story of his admission process there suggests a far less straightforward path to academic success than the image he portrays.
The suggestion that this rejection might explain his current attacks feels particularly resonant considering his actions. His recent targeting of Harvard appears strikingly personal, far removed from typical political sparring. It’s the kind of focused, sustained anger typically reserved for deeply personal slights. The idea that this is the origin point feels almost too on the nose.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s antagonism towards universities extends beyond Harvard. However, the intensity of his focus on Harvard suggests a specific, possibly intensely personal, reason. While he’s attacked other universities, the sustained and focused nature of his Harvard attacks suggests a personal history. Perhaps his initial attacks on other universities were a way of deflecting from, or testing the waters for, his eventual, fully-focused attack on Harvard.
The timing of this attack also raises questions. Why focus on it now, decades after the supposed rejection? This delay suggests the current attacks might be triggered by a more recent event. Perhaps the rejection of his son, Baron Trump, from Harvard, mirrors his own earlier experience, reigniting the old resentment. Or perhaps his recent difficulties have unearthed a long-suppressed, deep seated anger.
The claim that Trump didn’t get into Harvard, regardless of the exact motivations behind the current attacks, is not surprising given the perception of him throughout his life. His educational background, while boasting an Ivy League degree, doesn’t exactly project an image of academic excellence.
The contrast between Trump’s attacks and the reactions of others is telling. Few individuals outside of Trump himself seem to care greatly about his Harvard rejection. Even if true, it’s a detail that would likely remain unremarked upon were it not for the president’s disproportionate focus on it. His reactions seem driven by something far deeper than a simple political strategy. His focus, sustained over time and increasingly directed at Harvard, strongly supports the conclusion that this is a significant factor in his actions.
In conclusion, the biographer’s claim that Trump’s rejection from Harvard underlies his current attacks on the university holds significant weight. It provides a compelling and deeply personal explanation for his seemingly disproportionate focus on a single institution. It explains his intensity, his unusual persistence, and the clear personal nature of his actions in a manner that other explanations simply cannot. While it is impossible to know with absolute certainty, the theory’s coherence and fit with Trump’s known behaviour lend considerable credibility to the claim.