At last count, Harvard’s endowment was a little above $53 billion. Looking at the GDP of the world’s countries, that means that Harvard is richer than almost one hundred nations around the world. Nevertheless, just last year, Harvard received $686 million (or over half a billion dollars) from American taxpayers—and that’s not even counting the benefit flowing to Harvard from federally guaranteed student loans (you know, the ones that Biden also shunted onto taxpayers).

In return for that money, all that Donald Trump is asking from Harvard is that Harvard abide by the Civil Rights Act in terms of its Jewish students (who have been on the receiving end of vile and violent campus-wide discrimination) and allow the federal government to make sure that Harvard is properly accounting for the over half-a-billion in taxpayer money that it receives annually. Harvard has said no, insisting, instead, that it has a right to the unfettered use of taxpayer money.

Image by Joseph Williams. CC BY-SA 2.0.

Harvard’s response to the Trump administration’s demands that it stop violating the law came via a letter from its lawyers. The letter doesn’t explicitly address the audit. Instead, it focuses entirely on the contention that Harvard is violating Jewish students’ civil rights. In the first part of the letter, Harvard insists that it has done everything possible and necessary to protect Jewish students and claims that the campus is way better for Jews than it was a year ago. I cannot address that claim because I haven’t been following closely what’s been going on at Harvard for the past year.

What I can address, however, is the really stunning argument Harvard makes about the federal monies it receives. We, the lowly taxpayers, tend to believe that free speech is an inherent right that the government cannot take from us.

However, we also believe that the government doesn’t have to fund our speech. Indeed, we believe that once we start taking money from someone (an employer, a government, a relative...), then that person or entity begins to have a say in how we use that money, including what we say while on that person’s or entity’s dime. If we want unfettered speech, we need to say no to the money.

But again, that’s not the Harvard view. Instead, the Harvard view is that the American taxpayers must fund Harvard’s First Amendment rights, and that withdrawing funding is tantamount to censorship:

It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.

No one, of course, is saying that Harvard’s faculty, staff, and students don’t have free speech rights. We’re just saying that We the People have no obligation to subsidize those rights. Put another way, Harvard’s free speech isn’t “free” at all if we’re paying for it. If you want to speak, speak, but don’t do it on our dime.

It’s my sincere hope that President Trump pulls the plug on Harvard. It’s got an endowment that could keep it going for about 20 years right now without those federal funds.

Also, if Harvard’s efforts to protect Jewish students’ civil rights are nothing more than showpieces that make no meaningful difference to the discrimination they’re facing, I hope Trump authorizes AG Bondi to indict everyone involved for (a) committing a Conspiracy Against Rights, a felony under 18 U.S.C. §241, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison or (b) intimidating or interfering with any person because of their race, color, creed, etc. a misdemeanor or felony under 18 U.S.C. §245(b)(2).

Unless leftists face consequences for violating laws, why in the world would they stop violating them?

UPDATE: Trump turned off the spigot. Expect an activist judge to order it turned on again in five...four...three...