Trump's Attack on Harvard Will Fail | Opinion

President Donald Trump's financial assault on Harvard University demonstrates a fundamental disregard for constitutional law that should concern Americans across the political spectrum. His administration has frozen $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, threatened billions more, and now moved to revoke the university's tax-exempt status—all because Harvard refused to implement government-dictated speech policies on campus.

The constitutional problem couldn't be more transparent. When Trump himself declares Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status for allegedly "pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness,'" he's providing clear evidence that the government is punishing an institution specifically for allowing political expression it dislikes. This isn't subtle or ambiguous—it's textbook viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. The idea that Harvard could lose this legal fight is preposterous, as it would require a radical reinterpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence.

The administration's demands, outlined in a detailed letter to Harvard, reveal the true scope of this unconstitutional overreach. Trump officials ordered Harvard to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, implement a comprehensive mask ban at protests, subject academic programs to "viewpoint audits," adopt government-approved hiring practices, reduce the influence of faculty deemed "more committed to activism than scholarship," make "necessary changes" to classrooms to improve "viewpoint diversity," and require "full cooperation" with Department of Homeland Security officials.

These demands go far beyond addressing antisemitism. They represent an unprecedented government attempt to dictate how a private university operates, teaches, and governs itself.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that government cannot condition funding or tax benefits on compelling private institutions to restrict protected speech. In Rosenberger v. Rector, the Court ruled that denying funds to a student publication based on its viewpoint violated the First Amendment. In Speiser v. Randall, the Court prohibited states from denying tax exemptions to those who refused loyalty oaths. The doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" that was established through these cases disallows the government from using its financial leverage to control protected expression.

Harvard's response has been both principled and pragmatic. President Alan Garber correctly noted that "no government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue." With its $53 billion endowment and recently issued bonds, Harvard has the resources to maintain operations while this legal battle plays out in court. Yes, it will feel the pain of lean budgets in the meantime, but it will ultimately prevail.

What makes the administration's actions particularly problematic is their explicit targeting of protected speech and academic freedom. When the government demands institutions ban certain student organizations, conduct ideological "audits" of faculty and students, or modify classroom content to achieve government-approved "viewpoint diversity," it's not protecting civil rights—it's attempting to dictate which ideas can be expressed on campus. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, "the classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas" where First Amendment protections are especially vital.

Harvard isn't defending antisemitism—it's defending constitutional principles that protect everyone's freedom of expression. The university has already implemented various measures to address antisemitism on campus while maintaining its intellectual independence. The administration's response goes far beyond enforcing neutral anti-discrimination laws; it seeks to dictate Harvard's internal governance based on political preferences. The courts will reject this attempt to use financial pressure to control campus discourse.

The administration's claim that Harvard isn't operating in the "PUBLIC INTEREST" represents a dangerous redefinition of that concept to mean "speech the government approves." This contradicts decades of tax law and First Amendment jurisprudence. Non-profit status has never been contingent on expressing government-approved viewpoints.

Whether one agrees with Harvard's campus policies or the specifics of how it has handled protests, the constitutional principle transcends partisan politics. When any administration—Republican or Democratic—uses federal funding to compel private institutions to restrict protected speech, it fundamentally violates the First Amendment.

Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College and State University.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.