Since the think tank has tax exempt status, it is indirectly subsidized by the government both in terms of their operating expenses being lower and in Google's

Since the think tank has tax exempt status, it is indirectly subsidized by the government both in terms of their operating expenses being lower and in Google's tax offsetting writeoff. Which is why churches and think tanks occasionally lose (or are threatened with losing) their tax exempt status if they make political/commercial statements. I think a case could be made that the firing reveals the org for what they are: more of a PR firm than a think tank. I'd guess all their messaging on the guy's "separation" was around avoiding triggering an IRS audit more than anything else. Although losing Google's patronage might actually cost them more than losing tax exempt status, losing the status would likely mean Google would stop funding as they'd lose the tax write-off. So, losing tax exemption would basically be a death knell. The government subsidy issue also implies a degree of actual 1st Amendment speech implications. The power to tax is the power to kill/silence/stifle/etc. I don't want to overstate that point, but this may be one of the rare instances where the "censorship" cry carries at least a little validity.