7 ms·

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly

by Kapura 1y ago

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

catapart 1y ago
Yeeep. This is the only thing worth knowing about this whole mess. The people trust their reps to handle the money, and the reps are the only people who are supposed to be able to manage that money. Yet here we have tacit acceptance that the president can fuck with citizens' money just because he's in his feels about something. Absolute clownery.
snickerbockers 1y ago
America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. Some of the executive branch's appointee's have authority over him but only in specific circumstances (such as 25th amendment) and they're usually in agreement with him since he gets to appoint them anyways. Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.
- otterley 1y ago
  This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
  - ok_dad 1y ago
    In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
    - otterley 1y ago
      I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
      - xracy 1y ago
        Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
        otterley 1y ago
        > Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.” Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet. I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
      - runako 1y ago
        Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
- epistasis 1y ago
  If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. This is factually wrong.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    > If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
    - mrkstu 1y ago
      Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
      - dcrazy 1y ago
        I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
        DrillShopper 1y ago
        It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  > The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal. Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.
  - boothby 1y ago
    > Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.
    - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
      Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.
      - boothby 1y ago
        Congress has a jail, sure. But I and the comment I was responding to were regarding the judiciary. To put a finer point on it: if the president orders somebody to do something in violation of federal law, and then pardons them, can the law be enforced?
      - rayiner 1y ago
        Congress’s big hammer is impeachment. The smaller hammer is refusing to fund his administration. Between that and elections, that’s plenty of ways to keep the president in check.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > This is an open question. It's not. Statute has constrained the executive for all of American history.
    - cantrecallmypwd 1y ago
      Read the RFCP. ArtIII judges can absolutely empower people other than USMS to carry out legal orders such as service of process and enforcement of contempt orders.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. That omits a crucial issue that many amazingly overlook: The bar isn't constitutional but legal. Congress makes the laws, not the President. The President is bound by those laws, and in fact their job is to enforce the laws that Congress makes. They cannot do things unless empowered by the law.
- deepsun 1y ago
  > people didn't make a great choice Choices. Congress can overturn any president's order, but they do nothing.
- twic 1y ago
  There are many other democracies, and most do not have this problem. Yours is just an exceptionally poorly-designed one.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 1y ago
  > America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy What a turn of phrase! Love it.
nine_k 1y ago
This is a fair question, but it's being asked a lot already. Let's imagine that completely legitimate circumstances lead to the US Government stopping the stream of grants to the Ivy League universities. How would they cope, given their enormous endowments that generate significant interest? This question is asked much less, and the answer is much less obvious. Hence the value of TFA.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  What's the point of such an abstract question? The university's goals and expected resolution for the problem would always depend critically on why the stream of grants stopped.
  - aoanevdus 1y ago
    When a large institution is faced with uncertainty about the future, it’s both feasible and prudent to make plans that account for multiple future outcomes. In this case, it makes sense to do both of the following: 1) Fight the administration in the legal system. 2) Plan for the case where some of those legal fights are lost.
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      What does it mean, concretely, to plan for that case? It doesn't sound like there's any risk of a scenario where, like, Columbia can't pay maintenance staff and all the buildings flood. If the US government freezes them out of grant funding, then the research funded by those grants won't be funded any longer - there's no careful planning you can do to make that less true.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    A practical turn: can, say, Harvard or Yale answer: "Screw you, government, I don't need your money, go away!"?
- xracy 1y ago
  What is "a lot"? The question is pertinent. Additionally, the follow-on questions are irrelevant. There are a million better questions to ask on the other side of this as well, before we ask why someone can't live without the money that they've been acquiring entirely above board and legally. "Why does the gov't think it has the authority to do this?" Why do we need to have theoretical debates about legitimate circumstances, when there are real debates about illegitimate circumstances happening? having this irrelevant follow-on discussion is doing the gov't's work for them. In a different setting I can see asking this question, but there is no need to ask this question while the circumstances are clearly illegitimate.
bitwize 1y ago
This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if they didn't actually rape that girl, they might have... or they might have raped some other girl. When Orange Man exercises a power he presumes to have, it's "dictatorial", but when "Pen and a Phone" Obama exercised that same power -- together with the people, follow where Obama leads.
- guelo 1y ago
  But why are those on the right that objected to Obama not objecting to Trump?
  - onepointsixC 1y ago
    Because double standards.
  - bitwize 1y ago
    Because to them, the "right person" is doing it for the "right reasons". Same as the Obama supporters, really. It's like, do we live in a constitutional republic with consistent rules the government is expected to follow, or is it "for my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law"?
    - freejazz 1y ago
      One is complying with actual statutory law, the other is just ad hoc vengeance. You might not like it but one is an approach actually consistent with the constitutional order of power in this country and the other isn't. I'm so exhausted with this "tit for tat" bs. At best, it's a tacit admission that it is wrong and you don't care.
  - dani__german 1y ago
    Because the left never cared about the rules, except to circumvent them when in power and to use them as a way to prevent the other side from making meaningful progress when not.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Why are you citing the these institutions' contribution to the 20th century? We are 25 years past the 20th century, 35 years since the end of the Cold War (which was the spiritual end of the 20th century). What have these elite institutions contributed to the 1990+ world order?
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Tons of research in the sciences, including medicine.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    So nothing that required them to maintain a one-sided, antagonistic political stance?
_cs2017_ 1y ago
"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered the topic of whether the president has the power to withdraw funding. (On a side note, the word "framing" is also the wrong word to use.) One way to phrase your message correctly would be: "This article is about the impact of the president's decision, but I wish it also talked about whether the president has the authority to make that decision in the first place".
- xracy 1y ago
  There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering. "Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.
  - physPop 1y ago
    This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?
    - xracy 1y ago
      It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it? Yes there is.
    - dmurray 1y ago
      The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though. > Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding. With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.
bloppe 1y ago
They're not ignoring it: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/03/donald-trump-is-attacking-what-made-american-universities-great https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/03/donald-tr...
throwawaymaths 1y ago
if you want to go that way, you're conveniently ignoring if congress should have the authority to allocate funds to nonprofits that aren't part of the government under the enumerated uses in article I section 8.
- freejazz 1y ago
  In what way is what you raised a genuine question of constitutional law?
renewiltord 1y ago
Certainly one could argue if evidence of widespread racism by specific institutions should face punishment by the executive. It is entirely reasonable to believe that we should turn the cheek to institutional racism so that we can get good research out of it.
aag 1y ago
The Economist has articles on that subject already. They do their homework. Here's just one: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/24/who-will-stop-donald-trumps-drive-for-unchecked-power https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/24/who-will-...
- xracy 1y ago
  You don't go and decide a case on the merits when you've thrown it out on standing. Addressing the other question is a pre-requisite to considering the one included in this piece. And given that they are ignoring the presumable answer to the other question, they have not justified the existence of this article.
codexb 1y ago
At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  Do you honestly think Trump is individually reviewing grants? Trump with help of various groups makes political appointees who either individually oversee grant reviews or administrate individuals that do. These people are just as faceless and unaccountable as with any other president ... The difference here is that Congress who is much more accountable to voters deliberated and wrote laws authorizing various funding which is being completely overridden by the branch of government that is supposed to carry out the law.
- DrillShopper 1y ago
  > At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award Then that person should not be a politician or political appointee who judges on the merits and not on the votes it will bring.
  - prasadjoglekar 1y ago
    If the funds are disbursed from the public Treasury, it is very much a political decision. You can put some intermediary bureaucrats to create a face of objectivity, but it's a political decision at it's core.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      Do you understand that Congress has the power of the purse and the President does not?
      - prasadjoglekar 1y ago
rayiner 1y ago
The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."). Congress, moreover, has enacted laws that use those funds as a hook to influence the behavior of private universities. Specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the executive branch to deny federal funds to universities that discriminate on the basis of race. Now, it just so happens that, in 2023, Harvard university, among others, was found by the Supreme Court to have flagrantly violated that law: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa... There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law, where Congress has authorized the executive branch to do so. Indeed, I'm at a loss to understand who else you think has the power to do this, if not the President?
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  I'm guessing that what GP meant with "dictatorial" was along the lines of the power you describe being wielded in a specific manner. To put it differently: a state of affairs where the Executive/President has those powers may not be dictatorial, but this specific instance of him making use of that discretion in this specific way might be.
- otterley 1y ago
  > There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.
themgt 1y ago
A few other commenters have alluded to it, but Obama's 2011 (and then 2014/2016) "Dear Colleague" letters are critical to understanding what's going on here. As FIRE tells it: In April 2011, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) established new mandates requiring colleges and universities receiving federal funding to dramatically reduce students’ due process rights. Under the new regulations, announced in a letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, colleges and universities were required to employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual violence. The regulations further required that if a university judicial process allows the accused student to appeal a verdict, it must allow the accusing student the right to appeal as well, resulting in a type of “double jeopardy” for the accused. Additionally, OCR’s letter failed to recognize that truly harassing conduct (as defined by the law) is distinct from protected speech. Institutions that did not comply with OCR’s new regulations faced federal investigation and a potential loss of federal funding. The innovation in these letters was realizing OCR could just come to a new understanding of what civil rights law required, then tell universities that since this is what civil rights law means, following the guidance would be a mandate for institutions to receive federal funding. So now Trump's come in and reinterpreted civil rights law once again. At this point probably a supermajority of the country thinks this innovative idea for enacting ad-hoc nationwide policy changes has been abused by one or more administrations, but I haven't heard anyone seriously working on a generalized solution. Everyone's mostly given up on Congress and just hopes their team can take control of the magic pen. https://www.thefire.org/cases/us-department-educations-office-civil-rights-april-4-2011-guidance-letter-reduces-due-process https://www.thefire.org/cases/us-department-educations-offic...
davidf18 1y ago
[dead]

by Kapura 1y ago

catapart 1y ago

Yeeep. This is the only thing worth knowing about this whole mess. The people trust their reps to handle the money, and the reps are the only people who are supposed to be able to manage that money. Yet here we have tacit acceptance that the president can fuck with citizens' money just because he's in his feels about something. Absolute clownery.

snickerbockers 1y ago

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. Some of the executive branch's appointee's have authority over him but only in specific circumstances (such as 25th amendment) and they're usually in agreement with him since he gets to appoint them anyways. Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.

otterley 1y ago
This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
- ok_dad 1y ago
  In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
  - otterley 1y ago
    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
    - xracy 1y ago
      Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...
      - otterley 1y ago
        > Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.” Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet. I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
    - runako 1y ago
      Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
epistasis 1y ago
If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf. This is factually wrong.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  > If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
  - mrkstu 1y ago
    Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
    - dcrazy 1y ago
      I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
      - DrillShopper 1y ago
        It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
UncleMeat 1y ago
> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal. Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.
- boothby 1y ago
  > Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.
  - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.
    - boothby 1y ago
      Congress has a jail, sure. But I and the comment I was responding to were regarding the judiciary. To put a finer point on it: if the president orders somebody to do something in violation of federal law, and then pardons them, can the law be enforced?
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Congress’s big hammer is impeachment. The smaller hammer is refusing to fund his administration. Between that and elections, that’s plenty of ways to keep the president in check.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > This is an open question. It's not. Statute has constrained the executive for all of American history.
  - cantrecallmypwd 1y ago
    Read the RFCP. ArtIII judges can absolutely empower people other than USMS to carry out legal orders such as service of process and enforcement of contempt orders.
mmooss 1y ago
> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. That omits a crucial issue that many amazingly overlook: The bar isn't constitutional but legal. Congress makes the laws, not the President. The President is bound by those laws, and in fact their job is to enforce the laws that Congress makes. They cannot do things unless empowered by the law.
deepsun 1y ago
> people didn't make a great choice Choices. Congress can overturn any president's order, but they do nothing.
twic 1y ago
There are many other democracies, and most do not have this problem. Yours is just an exceptionally poorly-designed one.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 1y ago
> America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy What a turn of phrase! Love it.

nine_k 1y ago

This is a fair question, but it's being asked a lot already. Let's imagine that completely legitimate circumstances lead to the US Government stopping the stream of grants to the Ivy League universities. How would they cope, given their enormous endowments that generate significant interest? This question is asked much less, and the answer is much less obvious. Hence the value of TFA.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
What's the point of such an abstract question? The university's goals and expected resolution for the problem would always depend critically on why the stream of grants stopped.
- aoanevdus 1y ago
  When a large institution is faced with uncertainty about the future, it’s both feasible and prudent to make plans that account for multiple future outcomes. In this case, it makes sense to do both of the following: 1) Fight the administration in the legal system. 2) Plan for the case where some of those legal fights are lost.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    What does it mean, concretely, to plan for that case? It doesn't sound like there's any risk of a scenario where, like, Columbia can't pay maintenance staff and all the buildings flood. If the US government freezes them out of grant funding, then the research funded by those grants won't be funded any longer - there's no careful planning you can do to make that less true.
- nine_k 1y ago
  A practical turn: can, say, Harvard or Yale answer: "Screw you, government, I don't need your money, go away!"?
xracy 1y ago
What is "a lot"? The question is pertinent. Additionally, the follow-on questions are irrelevant. There are a million better questions to ask on the other side of this as well, before we ask why someone can't live without the money that they've been acquiring entirely above board and legally. "Why does the gov't think it has the authority to do this?" Why do we need to have theoretical debates about legitimate circumstances, when there are real debates about illegitimate circumstances happening? having this irrelevant follow-on discussion is doing the gov't's work for them. In a different setting I can see asking this question, but there is no need to ask this question while the circumstances are clearly illegitimate.

bitwize 1y ago

This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if they didn't actually rape that girl, they might have... or they might have raped some other girl. When Orange Man exercises a power he presumes to have, it's "dictatorial", but when "Pen and a Phone" Obama exercised that same power -- together with the people, follow where Obama leads.

guelo 1y ago
But why are those on the right that objected to Obama not objecting to Trump?
- onepointsixC 1y ago
  Because double standards.
- bitwize 1y ago
  Because to them, the "right person" is doing it for the "right reasons". Same as the Obama supporters, really. It's like, do we live in a constitutional republic with consistent rules the government is expected to follow, or is it "for my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law"?
  - freejazz 1y ago
    One is complying with actual statutory law, the other is just ad hoc vengeance. You might not like it but one is an approach actually consistent with the constitutional order of power in this country and the other isn't. I'm so exhausted with this "tit for tat" bs. At best, it's a tacit admission that it is wrong and you don't care.
- dani__german 1y ago
  Because the left never cared about the rules, except to circumvent them when in power and to use them as a way to prevent the other side from making meaningful progress when not.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

Why are you citing the these institutions' contribution to the 20th century? We are 25 years past the 20th century, 35 years since the end of the Cold War (which was the spiritual end of the 20th century). What have these elite institutions contributed to the 1990+ world order?

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Tons of research in the sciences, including medicine.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  So nothing that required them to maintain a one-sided, antagonistic political stance?

_cs2017_ 1y ago

"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered the topic of whether the president has the power to withdraw funding. (On a side note, the word "framing" is also the wrong word to use.) One way to phrase your message correctly would be: "This article is about the impact of the president's decision, but I wish it also talked about whether the president has the authority to make that decision in the first place".

xracy 1y ago
There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering. "Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.
- physPop 1y ago
  This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?
  - xracy 1y ago
    It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it? Yes there is.
  - dmurray 1y ago
    The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though. > Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding. With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.

bloppe 1y ago

They're not ignoring it: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/03/donald-trump-is-attacking-what-made-american-universities-great https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/03/donald-tr...

throwawaymaths 1y ago

if you want to go that way, you're conveniently ignoring if congress should have the authority to allocate funds to nonprofits that aren't part of the government under the enumerated uses in article I section 8.

freejazz 1y ago
In what way is what you raised a genuine question of constitutional law?

renewiltord 1y ago

Certainly one could argue if evidence of widespread racism by specific institutions should face punishment by the executive. It is entirely reasonable to believe that we should turn the cheek to institutional racism so that we can get good research out of it.

aag 1y ago

The Economist has articles on that subject already. They do their homework. Here's just one: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/24/who-will-stop-donald-trumps-drive-for-unchecked-power https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/24/who-will-...

xracy 1y ago
You don't go and decide a case on the merits when you've thrown it out on standing. Addressing the other question is a pre-requisite to considering the one included in this piece. And given that they are ignoring the presumable answer to the other question, they have not justified the existence of this article.

codexb 1y ago

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

lesuorac 1y ago
Do you honestly think Trump is individually reviewing grants? Trump with help of various groups makes political appointees who either individually oversee grant reviews or administrate individuals that do. These people are just as faceless and unaccountable as with any other president ... The difference here is that Congress who is much more accountable to voters deliberated and wrote laws authorizing various funding which is being completely overridden by the branch of government that is supposed to carry out the law.
DrillShopper 1y ago
> At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award Then that person should not be a politician or political appointee who judges on the merits and not on the votes it will bring.
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  If the funds are disbursed from the public Treasury, it is very much a political decision. You can put some intermediary bureaucrats to create a face of objectivity, but it's a political decision at it's core.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    Do you understand that Congress has the power of the purse and the President does not?
    - prasadjoglekar 1y ago

rayiner 1y ago

The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."). Congress, moreover, has enacted laws that use those funds as a hook to influence the behavior of private universities. Specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the executive branch to deny federal funds to universities that discriminate on the basis of race. Now, it just so happens that, in 2023, Harvard university, among others, was found by the Supreme Court to have flagrantly violated that law: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa... There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law, where Congress has authorized the executive branch to do so. Indeed, I'm at a loss to understand who else you think has the power to do this, if not the President?

EMIRELADERO 1y ago
I'm guessing that what GP meant with "dictatorial" was along the lines of the power you describe being wielded in a specific manner. To put it differently: a state of affairs where the Executive/President has those powers may not be dictatorial, but this specific instance of him making use of that discretion in this specific way might be.
otterley 1y ago
> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.

themgt 1y ago

A few other commenters have alluded to it, but Obama's 2011 (and then 2014/2016) "Dear Colleague" letters are critical to understanding what's going on here. As FIRE tells it: In April 2011, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) established new mandates requiring colleges and universities receiving federal funding to dramatically reduce students’ due process rights. Under the new regulations, announced in a letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, colleges and universities were required to employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual violence. The regulations further required that if a university judicial process allows the accused student to appeal a verdict, it must allow the accusing student the right to appeal as well, resulting in a type of “double jeopardy” for the accused. Additionally, OCR’s letter failed to recognize that truly harassing conduct (as defined by the law) is distinct from protected speech. Institutions that did not comply with OCR’s new regulations faced federal investigation and a potential loss of federal funding. The innovation in these letters was realizing OCR could just come to a new understanding of what civil rights law required, then tell universities that since this is what civil rights law means, following the guidance would be a mandate for institutions to receive federal funding. So now Trump's come in and reinterpreted civil rights law once again. At this point probably a supermajority of the country thinks this innovative idea for enacting ad-hoc nationwide policy changes has been abused by one or more administrations, but I haven't heard anyone seriously working on a generalized solution. Everyone's mostly given up on Congress and just hopes their team can take control of the magic pen. https://www.thefire.org/cases/us-department-educations-office-civil-rights-april-4-2011-guidance-letter-reduces-due-process https://www.thefire.org/cases/us-department-educations-offic...

davidf18 1y ago

[dead]