As soon-to-be denizens of America’s imminent Golden Age, which mysteriously seems to be perpetually hiding just around our next economic corner, I’m fearful this promised prosperity will arrive with strict rules governing how we are permitted to spend any newfound riches. For that matter, the expanding MAGA war against all things even remotely linkable to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is threatening to deny constitutionally guaranteed personal liberties. Buried within the New York Times earlier this month was a story about a lawsuit brought against the nonprofit Hispanic Scholarship Fund by an outfit called the American Alliance for Equal Rights. Believe it or not, their complaint is the Hispanic Scholarship Fund only awards its stipends to students who identify as Hispanic.

Horrifying, to be sure. I sit on a scholarship selection panel at my local chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) where we select direct descendants of, yes, you guessed it, Vietnam veterans for tuition assistance. Edward Blum, founder of the Alliance for Equal Rights, filed his lawsuit on the grounds the Hispanic program violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by taking race into account in making its awards. The unnamed plaintiffs are an Asian American high school student and a white law school candidate who claim they would have qualified for financial awards if they were of Hispanic heritage. Relying on a provision in a post-emancipation civil rights law that requires contracts must be made and enforced “without consideration of race,” an alleged contract with scholarship recipients includes an agreement that allows their names and photos to be used by the fund in its publications.

If this twisting of the law strikes you as utterly preposterous, don’t laugh. Blum’s sister organization, Students for Fair Admissions, succeeded in banning the Ivy League practice of race-based college admissions in a successful 2023 appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once again, his plaintiffs included Asian students who maintained they were entitled to more admission slots on the basis of their academic records. As Times reporter Bernard Mokam notes, “President Trump has been outspoken about his disdain for DEI efforts, and his administration has argued for a more expansive interpretation of the Court’s decision. Trump officials have argued that many of the programs that pursue racial diversity… are against the law. They have pursued investigations into scholarship… programs that take race into account.” In virtually every instance, there are no public monies involved in funding these scholarships. Requiring the VVA to open its scholarships to every student, regardless of whether their grandfathers served, would likely kill the program.

I am also a contributor to the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), which I imagine awards scholarships at traditionally black colleges and universities. I have no objection when white students attend these fine academic institutions, but I give to UNCF to assist the historically disadvantaged population of young black men and women. That’s my choice and it’s my money. Mr. Blum has seized on a long-dormant technicality to try and blow a hole in privately financed assistance programs specifically created to provide opportunities and resources to needy students. This infringes on my personal rights in a blatantly racist attempt to roll back the significant progress we’ve achieved by integrating all Americans into our national life.

Also sneaking past close scrutiny was Gov. Jared Polis’ decision to opt Colorado into a newly approved federal tax provision inserted in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” (BBB) that allows families who contribute to scholarship-granting programs to tap those dollars as a tax credit for ongoing, education-related expenses. The rules for how this program will actually operate have yet to be written (presumably not at the soon-to-be-defunct Department of Education). Critics, including teachers’ organizations, worry these dollars, now arguably public revenue, will be used as a backdoor mechanism for subsidizing private-school vouchers. The governor is reported to have quipped, “It supports donors to give more money to schools. I mean, I would be crazy not to (join).” Caution appears advised, absent a chance to learn how these monies will be distributed. Poor and marginalized families won’t have the discretionary income to contribute, nor a real need for a generous tax credit.

You needn’t be a cynic to suspect every Trump administration proposal will funnel the preponderance of its benefits to those who already have plenty. White House efforts to instruct Americans on how they spend and invest their personal money is reflected in its opposition to the existence of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) funds. Hiding behind the smokescreen of “fiduciary duty”, they allege financial advisors must maximize returns to investors above all else. As I’ve written previously, if my concerns are climate change and greenhouse gases, I have every right to invest in companies sensitive to those same concerns. I am happy to accept a point or two lower earnings on behalf of causes I believe in. That doesn’t make me an “unsophisticated” investor. Investment funds should be free to offer me ESG portfolios, and I should be free to purchase them. That’s called a free market!

The Trump administration has also launched investigations into the Democratic Party’s primary fundraising vehicle, ActBlue, together with an assortment of liberal, civil rights and environmental campaigns. They, of course, are doing nothing different than their counterparts on the political right. These investigations seem targeted at identifying whether foreign money has been dumped into Democratic coffers. With billions of dollars raked in during the past decade, it is probable a few thousand dollars have been contributed by ineligible donors. A rule-of-thumb should be, if you can’t vote, you probably shouldn’t donate. The occasional violation is more likely to happen out of ignorance than malice. Nonetheless, our president has claimed it should be illegal to contribute to any organization supporting the “lunatic left.” Sorry, it’s my money and I require no federal supervision. Congressionally appropriated funds also include some of my money, but Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department contends it is constitutional for the president to withhold funding based on partisan politics or expressions of “ideological dissent.”

This is surely a dubious proposition. And embracing a governing philosophy that whipsaws voters every time they change administrations is politically stupid and ethically bankrupt. The Supreme Court decision which ruled money in politics to be a form of speech and therefore cannot be curtailed, implies a corollary. Restricting how, when, or where I donate my own money also constitutes an infringement on my freedom of speech.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.