As many on this blog know, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Harvard and its history of viewpoint intolerance and attacks on free speech. That includes dozens of columns, a book, and a debate at Harvard Law School denouncing the purging of Harvard’s faculty and student body of Republicans and conservatives. I hope that this work offers some context and perhaps credibility for my reason for writing this morning: the threats to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status are fundamentally wrong. Such a move would produce lasting damage to both to higher education and the country as a whole.
After Harvard refused to comply with demands from the Trump Administration, the President called for its tax-exempt status to be lifted on Truth Social:
Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!
Some commentators have picked up on this call, including some who cite the 1982 decision involving Bob Jones University, in which the Supreme Court upheld the denial of tax-exempt status.
I obviously agree with many of the Trump Administration’s complaints against Harvard over its anti-free speech history and lack of diversity of viewpoints.
The anti-free speech movement in the United States began in higher education and these schools constitute the hardest silos for reform. Most faculty have refused to change their hiring trends with many departments now with no Republican or conservative faculty. Indeed, many professors at Harvard would rather bulldoze the campus than allow greater diversity of viewpoints in their departments. I have written that the current generation of faculty and administrators is destroying higher education to replicate their own ideological orthodoxy.
This is not about them. It is about the future of higher education and how we reform higher education is as important as the need to reform. Few of us would want the government to dictate hiring or teaching decisions in higher education. My book suggests some aggressive measures to reform higher education. That includes reducing funding and increasing reviews of university practices. The removal of tax-exempt status is not one of those measures.
Higher education plays a critical role in our economy. The schools are the engines of innovation and training that allow us to remain competitive in the world economy. Not only are these schools one of our largest employers, but they are also essential economic and social institutions to many local economies.
Most importantly, tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power. Free speech and associational rights are fostered by granting this status. While Harvard and other schools have abandoned core values, educational institutions are afforded tax-exempt status.
Almost ten years ago, Congress moved to impose tax burdens on Harvard and the larger academic endowments which make profits off their investments. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 imposed a 1.4 percent tax on those institutions. If tax-exempt status were removed, it would kick that burden up to 21 percent, causing a massive financial loss for many schools. It would likely result in an enormous reduction in research and even school closures.
Now, back to Bob Jones. I have long been critical of the IRS standards used to determine when tax exemption is not in the public interest. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in racial discrimination. However, the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.
In the case of Harvard, some are arguing that anti-Semitic activities on campus can be treated as similar to the discrimination at Bob Jones. There are obvious distinctions. At Bob Jones, the discrimination was embodied in university rules and based on the school’s religious values at the time.
The danger is that the Trump Administration would open the door to highly subjective determinations that target disfavored schools. If we go down this path, a new Administration led by President Harris or Walz could target conservative schools for discriminating against other groups or viewpoints. The government would then be able to hold financial control over institutions of higher education. It could be the death knell for higher education.
Some of us have been targets of academic intolerance for years. I have had calls for my termination for decades since I testified in the Clinton impeachment. It is not easy today to be a dissenter in higher education. You are shunned, isolated, and harassed. Many conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty have simply left out of exhaustion. The purging of our ranks rivals the crackdowns during the McCarthy period with most faculties now running from the left to the far left.
As one of the long-standing targets of this culture, I have spent my career fighting for change. However, I do not see the advantage of replacing one source of political control by another. We still have the greatest higher education system in the world. We need to find ways to reform it, not ruin it with impulsive measures.
The problem is not Harvard as an institution. It is the biased administrators and faculty who have a stranglehold on these institutions. However, if you want squatters out of a home, you do not burn the house down.
My book details ways to reduce federal and state support for universities while organizing donors to force changes at these institutions. It will not be easy or fast. However, if we want to remain the world’s premier higher education system, we need to focus on funding and enforcement issues, not tax exemption.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
DRONE SWARM LAWFARE ATTACKS
Your life or someone you know life was saved by Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Almost every American has benefited from Harvard University.
Harvard’s medical school successfully engineered modern anesthesia used during surgery and at your dentist’s office. The EKG was created thanks to Harvard University.
Today, in 2025 Harvard’s Medical School and MGH are are extremely close to curing Type 1 Diabetes and curing cancer. Trump is alive today due in large part to Harvard University’s research.
“Your life or someone you know life was saved by Harvard Medical “
Your life or someone else’s life was saved by a doctor. Are you advocating doctors get non-profit status?”
“The EKG was created thanks to Harvard University.
You are such an idiot and full of erroneous details. The EKG was invented by Einthoven in the Netherlands. That name remains connected to the EKG. Next time you go to your physician and have an EKG ask about the lead placement.
None of that has anything to do with today’s topic of Harvard not wanting to pay taxes for the services they receive, and instead to foist the tax burden onto everyone else while clinging to their $53 billion endowment.
Total rubbish. Harvard hasn’t saved any lives and hasn’t benefitted humanity in the slightest, unless, of course, you count aiding and abetting terrorism and Marxism and attacks on America and Israel as benefitting humanity.
Totally false in every aspect. Name one study by any Harvard researcher demonstrating anything of value concerning diabetes or cancer. Having trouble finding even one thing? That’s not a suprise.
Harvard is totally worthless and should receive NO federal funding and should be taxed as the Leftist political entity it is.
This is getting very very interesting. Seems like Xinis and Boasberg are intent on creating a constitutional crisis. Fun times! This is what happens when DEI is used to nominate Federal Circuit Judges. Next time we will have a SCOTUS Justice nominee declare she can not define the word “woman”. Oh wait
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
22 years as fed. prosecutor; Rep’d 91 Jan 6 clients. Comments not legal advice.
I’ve read the newly released decision from the 4th Circuit denying the Administration’s Request for Stay pending appeal of Judge Xinis’s order for expedited discovery.
The 4th Circuit is not helping her cause.
Remember that the 4th Circuit denied the stay request on her Order that Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States on a Friday, giving the Admin. until the following Monday at midnight to do so.
The Supreme Court not only stayed her order, it remanded it with instructions.
Judge Xinis did not follow the instructions. SCOTUS told her to explain what she meant by “effectuate.”
Rather than do that she deleted it from her original order, and the new order simply said “Factilitate” his return to the US. The
SCOTUS had read her original order as to “Facilitate” his release from custody in El Salvador. She never even mentioned that when she ordered again he be “returned” to the U.S.
Now she has ordered the Govt to answer discovery about what the Govt has done to “facilitate” his return to the US when that is not what SCOTUS affirmed.
The Govt said “We read facilitate” as used in immigration regulations, and responded accordingly.
Today the Fourth Circuit says “Read “facilitate” no as used in a regulation but as commonly used.”
Ok – Judge Xinis never said that. The was told to define what she meant by effectuate and she just deleted the word. She has never been specific about she meant by “Facilitate.”
Even after the Fourth Circuit order the Govt does not know — other than the ultimate result — what steps she is directing the Govt to take.
She has been unwilling to do that because that would create a basis to appeal on the claim that her order exceeds her authority.
But that is why the SCOTUS said “Describe what you mean” — so everyone can evaluate whether what she means exceeds her authority.
The Fourth is running cover for her — but she did not comply with what SCOTUS told her to do.
This is going back to SCOTUS ASAP and I don’t expect that they will be too happy that the lower court judges seem to not be able to find their own limits on what it is they might be able to accomplish.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1912983757205934480
Rogue judges, insane politicians, parasitic illegal aliens, Americans, and the President.
In the end, the entity that is going to matter is the commander-in-chief.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the Trump Department of Justice’s request to block orders that the Trump administration facilitate the release of wrongly deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
The decision, which was written by Reagan-appointed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, informed the administration that it would not “micromanage” the orders of Judge Paula Xinis, who has demanded that the administration provide daily updates its efforts to return Garcia to the United States.
What’s more, Wilkinson laid out the stakes of the Garcia case in bracing terms.
“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” he wrote. “Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”
Wilkinson then referred to the recent Supreme Court decision ruling that the administration facilitate Garcia’s return, which he said took care to not infringe upon the powers of the executive branch as outlined by Article II in the United States Constitution.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing,” the judge wrote. “It requires the government ‘to ‘”facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. ‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”
Toward the end of his opinion, Wilkinson warned the Trump administration that they were harming their own powers by refusing to comply with court orders.
“The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions,” he wrote. “The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.”
Anon– “Toward the end of his opinion, Wilkinson warned the Trump administration that they were harming their own powers by refusing to comply with court orders.”
Maybe. But as I said in another post it is just as likely the lower courts will end up with their own assumptions of power diminished.
When Jefferson took a stand before Marbury and Jackson openly ignored the Court was it the executive or the court that saw power diminished?
The only Constitutional court is the Supreme Court. All the lower courts are allowed by the Constitution but not required.
The President takes an oath to the Constitution and it is to his understanding of it. He can’t go to the Supreme Court every time he has to make a decision and certainly not to the lesser courts.
So long as the courts stuck with arguable interpretations of law they were allowed great latitude. But now they are reaching far too often into their equity toolkit and the Congress and the majority of the people are not going to cry much if the courts see their equity decisions ignored. In Volume I of his work Blackstone said law without equity can be too harsh but that too much equity destroys law, is essentially arbitrary and lawless. These lower courts have gone too far into equity and become tyrants in the original sense, ruling without the support and justification of law.
Roberts could have avoided this showdown if he had acted with clarity earlier on, but he is proving to be a Carter or Biden version of a Chief justice who ineptly does more harm than good. It is too late for him to have a ‘legacy’ that isn’t contemptible.
So, what is the behavior correction method if it is not financial? No consequences, no correction by Harvard………
The question is whether Harvard will correct it free speech behavior WITHOUT a potential catastrophic action by the govt!
Prof. Turley. many Excellent Points, as always.. However… let’s narrow the scope here.. This is really not about Trump wanting to dictate anything re: the Academic Independence of Harvard.. This is about POTUS saying: follow Federal Laws, specifically re: Anti-Discrimination (..stop being anti-Semitic in all ways…) IF you want Federal Funds! Does either for or against Freedom of Speech mean you get to choose whether you follow Federal Laws or not? (DEI in reality is Very Discriminatory.. as I know first-hand…) Parents do this all the time with their children.. either follow the laws of the house, or no allowance.. At this point in time, Harvard would have to show evidence that they have really changed course (hence The Govt. wanting to see such evidence, asking for internal coms, etc…) Agree that the danger here is a whacko Dem Govt. could stoop to ‘Politicizing’ this and seek retribution with Conservative schools… When I was in college at GWU.. it was all about pro-Free Speech…. How could the same Lliberals back then grow into a reactionary right (under the guise of just being even more Liberal..) force Against Free Speech.. ? ..the same Liberals who marched against Discrimination and were pro-Free speech, including such celebrity Liberals like Bernie Sanders.. an active SDSer back then….???
Harvard to Borrow $750 Million Amid Federal Funding Uncertainty
The Ivy League school faces heightened scrutiny over its access to $9 billion in federal funding.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/harvard-to-borrow-750-million-amid-federal-funding-uncertainty-5838575
As far as I understand, universities that receive Federal Student Aid cannot earn a profit on those funds; putting them in a savings account is illegal. So how would I sell bonds?
Let’s be clear: Federal Funding and Federal Student Aid are two different things.
Despite its $53 billion endowment—the largest among colleges in the United States—Harvard relies heavily on federal funding, particularly for its extensive research operations.
With the new sale, the university’s total borrowing for fiscal year 2025 will rise to $1.2 billion.
I think they’re going to need advice from DOGE.
OT, with Hillary and Kamala losing their elections, the Dem explanation is that it was sexism. Not so, they lost because they were bad candidates. It had nothing to do with them being women. Nominate a woman with the abilities, intelligence, and charisma of Margaret Thatcher or Georgia Meloni, and Americans will vote for her in droves. In 45 seconds Meloni shows here why she is so much more articulate and intelligent than either Hillary or Kamala:
https://x.com/Inevitablewest/status/1912573913663447503
Oldman: your premise is flawed from the start. Hillary WON the popular vote, but lost the EC because Trump engaged help from Russian hackers who helped him cheat his way into office. Trump’s campaign directed the hackers where to send social media posts to districts identified by his campaign where support for Hillary was soft enough that the lies would work. That’s called “cheating”. Trump “won” in 2024 because he LIED about his ability to bring down the cost of groceries “on day one”. Trump did not receive even 1/2 of the votes cast, and “won” over Kamala by 1.48%, one of the slimmest margins in recent history. Trump is, and always will be, a crook and liar.
Both of these women were much better human beings and candidates than the lying convicted criminal you worship.
Gigi – I’m sorry you appear to actually believe what you write. My best wishes for your recovery.
It is true that Hillary won the popular vote, but so what? That is meaningless. The entire campaigns of both candidates were designed around winning the EC vote. If the popular vote meant anything, you would have seen vastly different campaigns. Nobody can say how that contest would have ended.
Hillary won the popular vote because the voting that year was very partisan and there are MANY MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICAN voters -more than 1.48 %,!!!!!!! which means more Democrats voted for Trump than Republicans voted for Hillary.
You are such a hateful clown.
Prof. Turley argues that higher education endowments should be tax free because “Higher education plays a critical role in our economy. The schools are the engines of innovation and training that allow us to remain competitive in the world economy.”
This is not, as suggested, a valid reason for tax exemption. Innovation, research, training, student support and the like are valid uses for endowments. To the extent that endowments are used for appropriate purposes they should be tax deductions and this would be consistent with the reason that most donate to colleges and universities. That makes much more sense than having the institutions sit on endownments that are looked upon for the most part by institutions as investments that grow to the sky.
“Now, back to Bob Jones. I have long been critical of the IRS standards used to determine when tax exemption is not in the public interest. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in racial discrimination. However, the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.”
Professor, that is why it is necessary to rid the country of tax deductions for the few. This action ends discriminatory claims permitting biases to be paid for by the funders of such bias.
“The anti-free speech movement in the United States began in higher education and these schools constitute the hardest silos for reform. ”
That is because you indirectly support one group of people using your support to garner power. That support causes academic prices to rise, which hurts the poor. I note that you want policies to correct the harm of policies you support. Instead, those policies you support lead to more harm and discrimination. You are in a never ending loop which adds destruction on top of destruction.
With a $53 billion endowment, Harvard benefits from all the things people pay taxes for: national defense, local police and fire services, infrastructure, and so forth. Those things have to be paid for by someone. By not paying taxes, Harvard foists the tax burden onto others who are far less wealth. Not only the American working man and woman, but the residents of Cambridge, Mass who have to shell out more on their property and income taxes. Harvard thus causes a curtailment in services, or a higher tax burden for everyone else. If they start having to pay taxes, sorry I’m not going to shed a tear.
” Harvard’s tax-exempt status are fundamentally wrong. Such a move would produce lasting damage to both to higher education and the country as a whole.”
Professor Turley, tax-exempt status is a funding mechanism contributing to income inequality. If any entity needs to be funded, use the same system to fund private businesses. Why do you wish to support specific parts of society?
Meyer, in this particlar case our professor friend is unable to see beyond his own GWU Law School nose. He, directly or indirectly, benefits from academia not paying taxes.
You make a fair point, JAFO, but there’s more to consider. Turley still seems caught behind an emotional barrier hindering his ability to approach the matter with complete clarity. I was raised with similarly strong convictions about education, but I’ve since learned not to let emotion get in the way of a thorough and objective evaluation.”
The “Harvard 5” refers to a group of Harvard faculty and staff, including a prominent professor, his wife, his deputy, and the deputy’s girlfriend, who were accused of financial misconduct while advising the Russian government in the 1990s. The group was involved in advising the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin on behalf of the United States. The US Justice Department charged them with financial misconduct, but Harvard defended them strongly. The case resulted in litigation and a loss for Harvard, who ultimately returned most of the money they had been paid.
Here’s a more detailed look:
The Harvard-Russia Scandal:
This scandal, which unfolded in the 1990s, involved a team of Harvard experts advising the Russian government on economic reforms.
Financial Misconduct Accusations:
The US Justice Department charged the group with financial misconduct, alleging that they profited inappropriately from their advisory role.
Harvard’s Defense:
Harvard strongly defended its professor and the team, but the university ultimately lost the lawsuit and was “laughed out of court” by a jury.
Consequences:
Harvard returned most of the money it had been paid and the case highlighted the challenges and ethical dilemmas involved in international advisory work.
Hidden Lawsuit:
There was also a second lawsuit that Harvard attorneys settled and sealed, silencing an American businessman at the heart of the case through a non-disclosure agreement.
Broader Context:
The scandal is viewed as a microcosm of the larger issues facing the US and Russia in the post-Cold War era, particularly regarding ethical standards and fair play.
Because They Could: The Harvard Russia Scandal (and …The Harvard Russia scandal of the 1990s was a turning point in the years after the Cold War ended. But it never achieved a satisfy…
Amazon.com
“No Harvard should not lose its tax exempt status.”
Why not Professor Turley? They invest in some of the same things I do, yet I am taxed while they are not. I own property as their endowment does, yet I am taxed on my property, and they are not. That puts me, an individual, at a significant disadvantage when I compete against a $50 Billion endowment investor.
For those on the left who call for equality of chance for all, end charitable giving, 501 C 3s and all tax-free investments
I agree. The old model made sense: for soup kitchens to stay open, etc., we didn’t want them to be taxed. But that model is now obsolete or has been exploited unfairly so that it’s no longer worth keeping. The fairest thing is for everyone to be taxed equally, with no exceptions. Everyone is entitled to the things purchased with tax money (national defense, police services, infrastructure, etc.), so everyone should have to pitch in their fair share. Time to move into the 21st century.
Thank you Kansas. With you on board we have an army. 🙂
Your unquestionably elucidating points aside, what one can buy with investment income is not what differentiates nonprofits for for profit entities. The purpose of the purchase is what matters.
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
This is the same reason Christian megachurches can buy massive facilities and Super Bowl ads.
Undoubtedly, some charities do some good because of their tax-free status. However, because of this status, much money is wasted, and even more is purposely engaging in self-serving or discriminatory practices.
All one has to do is look at the expenditures of a 501 C 3, note how much is paid to its leaders and then follow the money to see how much of it is self-serving. It is disgraceful. I am involved in many charities and support them, but looking at the workings of these charities, the nation would be better off without them.
Andrew Carnegie donated about $2 Billion to libraries that are still here today. How much of that was tax deductible? The answer is none. Today, when someone donates, they are looking for a return on investment. That is what the left was claiming about Trump’s donations. From what I saw, the percentage of directed money to the individual or charity was average or better than the average of a 501 C3 of similar size and funding. The left complained about Trump’s 501 C 3. I say end all 501 C 3’s and start funding charities with real charity. That will place all people on the same level playing field.
If one wishes to maintain the tax-exempt status, one must recognize that continuous fixes are made and lead to trouble. I will follow Friedrich Hayek’s advice. Use the method that least affects the marketplace. I suggest that the percentage deduction be proportional to the individual or purpose of the charity. That is a suggested compromise, not my position.
You’re not a university. That’s why you don’t get an exemption.
Your critical thinking skills are in a garbage dump. Get the garbage trucks to remove the trash and help you find them.
We know what the law permits, but why? I own a housing unit almost identical to one owned by Harvard. Both units are owned for financial benefit. Why should Harvard’s unit, essentially the same as mine, not be taxed?
Bravo Professor Turley!
No one should want a “Government-directed” University. It is simply the other side of the coin “many professors at Harvard would rather bulldoze the campus than allow greater diversity of viewpoints….” Same idea: Burn it down rather than reforming it – so it can be started anew on the ‘correct’ path – only the ideologues have changed.
I applaud your book “The Indispensable Right.” Salvation from the “biased…stranglehold on these institutions” must come from competitive (i.e. market) forces and from within. Such universities are well on the way toward self-destruction where their reputation, and degrees, become worthless.
#. Not until they’re through stirring the cauldron of trouble bubble boil and rubble is complete and the endowment is ravaged. The endowment is a laundry boiling anti-Jewish Christian groups.
Hit them on visas and foreign donors from hostile nations. The anti Christian Jewish is middle eastern money.
Face it, they’re there for the endowment and not education. How does the idea that education is untaxed? Squeeze it into the 1st amendment but in pencil.
OT;
Tufts Student Ozturk denied bail by Louisiana immigration judge, reason: She poses a flight risk and a danger to society. Really? You can tell this is why they take them to Louisiana and Texas. Trump appointed judges will always rule in favor of Trump.
Will they file Letitia James’ mortgage fraud case in Louisiana or Texas?
How about Coeur d’Alene, Idaho?
El Salvador is a very safe country and is truly paradise
“We still have the greatest higher education system in the world.” By what standard can this statement be regarded as true? Our high schools send illiterates to colleges, and colleges turn them into political pamphleteers, qualified only to be trolls on internet blogs like this one.
^^^ recent development as was the president of Harvard plagiarism and the unbelievably confirmed –> what is a woman, justice. Bunch of whimps voted that in and the esteemed justice pointing out mifepristone is just like aspirin.