Billionaire Marc Andreessen unleashed a fiery critique of elite universities’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in a private WhatsApp chat. His words, sharp as a Silicon Valley pitch, targeted Stanford and MIT, accusing them of sidelining American students. This isn’t just tech gossip—it’s a clash of values with billions at stake.
The New York Post reported that in a May 3, 2025, WhatsApp group chat, Andreessen, co-founder of the $42 billion Andreessen-Horowitz firm, called out Stanford and MIT for DEI practices he claims favor foreign students over U.S. citizens.
The chat, moderated by White House AI policy adviser Sriram Krishnan, included tech titans like Meta’s Yann LeCun and Stanford’s Fei-Fei Li. Andreessen’s blunt remarks, later deleted, sparked a firestorm among the group’s tech and policy elites.
Andreessen didn’t hold back, labeling Stanford and MIT “political lobbying operations” that stifle American innovation. His claim that they’ve “declared war on 70% of the country” sounds like a rallying cry for a fed-up heartland. But is it fair to paint these academic giants as anti-American, or is this just a billionaire’s bruised ego talking?
A major Stanford donor, Andreessen alleged the university ousted his wife, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, from her role at its philanthropy center.
He warned this move could cost Stanford “$5 billion in future donations”—a threat that carries weight from a man with his wallet. It’s a personal jab that muddies his broader critique of DEI policies.
The WhatsApp group, formed to discuss AI policy, wasn’t just a tech nerd hangout—it included Trump administration officials acting in a “personal capacity.”
Andreessen, no stranger to political flip-flopping, has backed both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in past elections. His firm’s endorsement of Trump in July 2024, post an assassination attempt, shows his MAGA leanings aren’t new.
Andreessen’s firm also bankrolled Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover in 2022, tying him to the MAGA orbit. Yet his call for a “counterattack” against universities feels like a bridge too far, even for his allies. Some chat members argued that bashing universities and immigration could scare off the very tech talent America needs.
Not content with torching universities, Andreessen took aim at the National Science Foundation, demanding it face a “bureaucratic death penalty.”
He accused the NSF of funding projects that censor Americans online—a serious charge with little public evidence to back it up. It’s a bold swing, but without receipts, it risks sounding like conspiratorial bluster.
The WhatsApp chat, created by Krishnan before Trump’s second term, was a high-powered mix of tech leaders and academics. Discussions ranged from NSF budget cuts to export curbs on Chinese AI firm DeepSeek. Andreessen’s outburst, though, shifted focus from policy to personal grievances.
Andreessen claimed DEI and immigration policies “systematically cut” Trump voters’ kids out of elite education and corporate America. It’s a charged narrative that resonates with those who feel coastal elites have rigged the game. But painting universities as the villain ignores the complexity of admissions and global competition.
MIT fired back, with a spokesperson insisting the institute is “merit-based and affordable,” driven by innovation. That’s a polite way of saying Andreessen’s accusations don’t stick. Stanford stayed silent, perhaps wary of escalating a feud with a deep-pocketed donor.
Some chat members found Andreessen’s tirade “out of character,” noting the group’s usual push for open immigration to attract tech talent.
His call to raze the NSF and punish universities clashed with their pragmatic stance. It’s a reminder that even tech giants can let emotion cloud strategy.
Andreessen’s claim that universities are on a “hyperdrive” of discrimination since 2020 taps into a broader conservative frustration. The “insanity” of that summer, he argued, woke up his base, and “they’re not going to take it anymore.” It’s a populist zinger, but risks alienating the very institutions that fuel America’s tech edge.
Andreessen stopped using the chat soon after his May 2025 rant, perhaps sensing he’d overplayed his hand. His deleted messages, preserved in screenshots, show a man unafraid to burn bridges. But in a group meant for policy, his personal vendetta felt like a misfire.
The billionaire’s critique of DEI as “politically lethal” echoes a growing conservative push to dismantle progressive agendas in academia.
Yet, his broad strokes—lumping DEI with immigration as a 60-year conspiracy—oversimplify a nuanced issue. It’s a soundbite for the base, not a blueprint for reform.
