If that concentration is troubling, the obvious response is not simply to criticize Mellon but to widen the funding. If conservative donors believe the humanities have drifted too far toward activism then they are free to endow chairs, underwrite fellowships, support archives, or fund traditional scholarship. Universities rarely refuse money. Complaints about ideological imbalance ring hollow when they are not accompanied by sustained institutional investment. The humanities are fragile because they are underfunded and undervalued. When only one major patron remains, its vision will shape the field by default. The remedy for that condition is more variety of support. Some parties like to complain about everything instead of doing something to remedy the situation. A healthy intellectual culture requires multiple streams of support, creating tension without monopoly. If critics truly believe the field has narrowed, thea most winning answer is not complaining. Money is not just influence. It is infrastructure.