I see where the “journalists” are saying I — I mean, the administration — used keywords to find a couple of grants that weren’t exactly what we were looking for. Two billion dollars. Maybe more. Who’s counting? They’re calling it unconstitutional. TREMENDOUS, just TREMENDOUS, you have NEVER seen anything like it. The keyword thing, the keyword search, they’re saying I wrote the keywords myself. I did. I wrote them. VERY smart keywords. I have the BEST keywords. Nobody has keywords like me.
They’re saying we searched for “health equity.” Okay, fine. And “structural racism.” And “sexual orientation.” And “vaccine hesitancy.” We used keywords. People are saying that keywords are a TERRIBLE, unconstitutional way to run a government. No, no — keywords are SMART. Keywords are BEAUTIFUL. I’m a businessman, I know about keywords. You find what you don’t want, you cut it out. A BEAUTIFUL system. The people who are upset, the people who lost the grants, they’re researchers. What do they know? They don’t know deals. They don’t know the art of the keyword. I have it on the HIGHEST authority — the BEST authority — that keywords are COMPLETELY legal. They’re fine, they’re PERFECT. Tremendous keywords.
The Department of Energy, the DOE, TREMENDOUSLY smart people, they terminated 283 grants — BIG number, a VERY big number — from states that voted for Kamala Harris. The WORST states. They didn’t touch the red states, and why would they? The red states are WINNING. They WON. BEAUTIFULLY. This is the art of the deal. The art of the termination. You set them up, you make them think they’re going to get funding, and then you use keywords — BOOM — GONE. It’s playing chess, 4D chess. Everyone else is playing checkers. The 4D keyword chess. They walked RIGHT into the keyword trap. The BIGGEST trap. The BEST trap.
And the National Institutes of Health, the NIH, I told them, I said, “Use the tool. The internal search tool. Flag EVERYTHING that says ‘health equity.’ Flag ‘work force diversity.’ Flag ‘structural racism.’ Flag ‘sexual orientation.’” VERY smart. They found over a THOUSAND grants at UC. Over a THOUSAND. At UCLA alone, nearly 700. That’s a LOT. TREMENDOUS amount. Last year they said it was 500. Now it’s 700. They’re finding MORE. Very smart. Cancer research — who NEEDS it? Vaccine research — the vaccines, they don’t WORK. The BEST people told me they don’t work. Health disparities — what health disparities? The people who are saying there are health disparities are the people who are LOSING their grants. Very BEAUTIFUL.
And now they’re saying — the NIH, VERY smart people — they’re saying DOGE, the Elon thing, the AI thing, maybe it was used to target the grants. Maybe. Maybe it was the AI. BEAUTIFUL AI. The BEST AI. You know, Elon and I, we have a GREAT relationship. GREAT relationship. He said, “Sir, use the AI. It will find the keywords FASTER.” I said, “Elon, you’re a genius.” And he was. The AI is VERY smart. It found the keywords. It found the “health equity” and the “structural racism” and it terminated them. TREMENDOUS. The AI is the BEST. I LOVE AI. I love keywords. I love the combination.
They are saying I — not me personally, but the administration — violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment. I LOVE the First Amendment. TREMENDOUS respect for the First Amendment. I have the BEST First Amendment. But the First Amendment doesn’t mean you can say ANYTHING you want about “structural racism” when I’m the one giving you the money. It doesn’t work that way. They think they can take my money — the U.S. taxpayer money, which is MY money, because I’m your president, very presidential, the MOST presidential — and use it to study things I don’t want studied. No deal.
The Department of Transportation, DOT, they terminated six grants for “transportation equity.” Transportation equity — what IS that? Equity is a DISASTER. Equity is the WORST word. I don’t want equity. I want WINNING. I want the BEST. I want the MOST. So we found the grants for “disadvantaged communities” and “diversifying the transportation workforce” and we CUT them. Very TOUGH. Very FAIR. The UC Davis professor who lost three grants — I already suspended Berkeley’s grants, you know, for foreign funding — 77 researchers, 79 projects, forty graduate students — who CARES? They’ll get other jobs. They’ll find something else. They’ll work for the Department of Something Else. I’m doing them a FAVOR.
The people who are suing me, the UC researchers, they filed a lawsuit. Thakur v. Diklis Chump. VERY bad name. VERY bad case. Judge Rita F. Lin, appointed by Biden. NOT the best. She said, “You have to restore the grants.” She issued preliminary injunctions. Injunctions. I HATE injunctions. The injunction is a DISASTER, a TERRIBLE word. She said I had to restore the grants while she reviews the whole thing. So I restored some. Maybe. I’m not sure. The point is, the point is, the REAL point is the agencies admitted what they did, and the only reason they admitted it is because they RESPECT me, they respect the administration, they know a keyword is a keyword and a grant is a grant and if you don’t like the keyword, you KILL the grant. That’s the art of the deal. That’s what I DID.
I had NOTHING to do with the actual termination. I just chose the keywords. Very smart keywords. The BEST keywords. People are coming to me — VERY important people — they’re saying, “Sir, your keywords are the BEST keywords we’ve EVER seen.” And I say, “Thank you. Thank you VERY much.” A BEAUTIFUL thing. A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL thing. The researchers, they’re BROKEN. The universities, they’re BROKEN. The California economy — everyone is saying it’s BROKEN. But for me, for the country, it’s a TREMENDOUS success. You don’t understand. You have to be VERY smart to understand. A 4D keyword chess SUCCESS.
The EPA is settling with the professors. Settling. That means they don’t want to be sued. That means they’re WEAK. VERY weak. I don’t settle. I WIN. I ALWAYS win. You ask my uncle, the great MIT professor — he would tell you I WIN. I ALWAYS knew about grants. I knew about grants BEFORE anyone else. I used to say, “Grants are a DISASTER. Grants are the enemy.” And everyone laughed. NOW they’re not laughing. NOW they’re begging for their grants back. BEAUTIFUL.
The Massachusetts case — a separate federal judge, BAD judge, TERRIBLE judge — said I can’t use the “no longer effectuates agency priorities” clause. As I said last week, that ruling was a disaster but I’m still fighting. The clause is BEAUTIFUL. It’s the BEST clause. And California and 22 other states — including some red states, I’m told, they don’t know any BETTER, they were TRICKED — they sued. Twenty-two states. That’s a LOT. But they’re the WRONG states. The real red states, the ones that LOVE me, they’re not part of it. They’re WITH me. They understand priorities. The priority is to stop the CRAZY leftist research. The “transportation equity” research. The “structural racism” research. The “diversifying the workforce” research. We STOPPED it. BEAUTIFULLY.
So Judge Lin, she has a hearing October 20th. A BIG hearing. The summary judgment. They’re going to declare it UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That’s what they WANT to do. They want to tell the American people that the president — YOUR president — cannot use keywords to redirect funding from leftist professors to the priorities of the country. It’s a DISGRACE. It’s a WITCH HUNT. It’s the BIGGEST witch hunt since the OTHER witch hunt. But I won’t LET them. I have the BEST lawyers. The BEST words. The BEST keywords. You’ll SEE. After October 20th, they’ll be BEGGING for the keywords to come back. “Please, use the keywords,” they’ll say. “Use them on EVERYONE. Use them on us.”
I ALWAYS said the keywords were a BEAUTIFUL idea. The BEST idea. Nobody had EVER thought of keywords before. I thought of them. I wrote them myself. Very smart. Very BEAUTIFUL. The art of the keyword.
Now, who lost a grant today? I’m looking. I’m looking. I have the keywords ready. VERY smart keywords. The BEST you’ve EVER seen. TREMENDOUS.
Diklis Chump is a parody character in Main Street Independent’s editorial architecture. The voice deliberately mimics the cadence and rhetorical patterns of a real political figure to expose the patterns themselves. The positions expressed are parody, not advocacy.