this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
48 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23594 readers
3044 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 2 points 43 minutes ago

First of all in a fight between Donald Trump and his staff versus Harvard I’m gonna go ahead and  put my money on Harvard and it’s world, renowned lawyers.

2nd, how is this not government overreach? 

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 2 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)

OK, so they eliminated $2.6 billion in federal grants. Now they're preventing Harvard from enrolling foreign students.

Sounds bad, right? Definitely for the students, but even if you assume $100,000 per year per student, that's "only" $680 million. So their second attack is with reduced leverage. If your goal is to crush Harvard into compliance, you want the attacks to amplify, not weaken each time. So it's already feeling like a deflated balloon.

They want to strip Harvard of its tax exempt status, but that's around 20% in capital gains, which are only realized when they sell assets. So if I'm the president of Harvard, I ride it out; I sell just enough to get by for the next year until it winds its way to the Supreme Court and gets overturned. So they just need to sell $3 billion in assets and pay about $600 million in taxes. After a verdict is rendered, they might even get that amount back in the judgement.

Either way, once again a weaker attack than the previous one (assuming, as the Trump administration must) that any revocation of tax-exempt status will be overturned.

And what's left? Arresting the president and board of overseers? There aren't many things to realistically try after this. Time and momentum seem to be on Harvard's side.

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

I’m not even worried about the money to me, an idiot, the problem is:

  1. Trump told Harvard to eliminate DEI positions
  2. Trump admin scrubs diversity and DEI programs from public schools
  3. Trump tries to eliminate foreign Harvard enrollment
  4. Trump tries to dictate History lessons including history.

Will Trump try to eliminate foreign or non-citizen enrollment in public schools? I know people think I am over-cautious here but My wife is a green card holder, what sorta prejudice does this open us up too?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 hours ago

The party that ran on the campaign promise to 'remove big government' and allow everyone 'more freedom'

[–] Binky@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Welcome to the world of many, many lawsuits.

[–] WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world 2 points 49 minutes ago

If only Harvard could find some good lawyers. /s