Earlier this week, in an attempt to recover $2.5 billion in federal funding, Harvard University took the Trump administration to court. This started a few weeks ago when the president called on institutions of higher learning to crack down on antisemitism on their campuses. Harvard was specifically warned that if they did not make changes, they would lose federal funding. In a letter to Harvard’s wider community, the school’s president painted the threat as a challenge to academic freedom:

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.

Former President Obama inserted himself into the conversation, posting this comment on X:

Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions—rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate, and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.

As Andrew Walker pointed out, it’s odd that someone who attempted to force nuns to pay for contraception would position himself as “a vanguard of the First Amendment.” But the former president also once said that he could always get things done because “I have a pen, and I have a phone.”

Well, now, both of those things are in the hands of a different administration. The IRS is even considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status. And it’s not just Harvard on the receiving end. According to Ballotpedia, President Trump has issued some 171 similar executive orders, 45 memoranda, and proclamations on policies ranging from trade, healthcare, immigration, energy, and criminal justice.

In response to one of President Trump’s posts about Harvard, Constitutional lawyer and First Amendment defender Casey Mattox wisely advised caution: “The prior Administration and various lefty groups literally tried to do this. They failed. We should not give them the tools to succeed.”

He’s got a point. For the last few decades, Christians and conservatives barely fought off attempts by progressives to squash all dissent. Thankfully, there are strong legal and traditional protections for conscience grounded in the Constitution. But make no mistake, the next president will be more than happy to use any precedent set by former officeholders, whether Obama or Trump.

Breakpoint contributor Dr. Glenn Sunshine has pointed out that the infamous Machiavelli, a name now shorthand for tyranny, was actually a strong advocate for freedom. His call for an all-powerful Prince was not argued as an ideal, but as political triage. Things were so bad that only an unlimited ruler could make them right. Ideally, the Prince would hand power back over once the crisis passed. But, of course, it never works that way. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely.”

The rule of law is essential for flourishing, but not for keeping one party perpetually out of power. The realities of the human condition in this post-Fall world mean that no one should be trusted with unchecked power. Our nation’s founders understood that if people were angels, government would not be necessary, and if politicians were perfect, neither would restraints.

None of this means that Harvard deserves tax dollars or tax breaks. Only that there are reasons for our rules and the restraints on power. If you win by executive order, you can die from executive order, four years later.

Source