They have the right to live luxe lifestyles on your dime, Benighted Bigot Peons.

National Public Radio and three of its affiliates in Colorado sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over a sweeping executive order signed earlier this month that would terminate the outlet's federal funding.

In a suit filed in DC federal court, NPR and three stations -- Colorado Public Radio in Centennial, Roaring Fork Public Radio in Aspen and KSUT Public Radio in Ignacio -- alleged that President Trump's order unconstitutionally infringes on First Amendment protections.

"The Order's objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country," attorneys representing the radio stations wrote in the 43-page filing.

"The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR's and the Local Member Stations' freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion," they said.

"Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution's Due Process Clause," they added.

...

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought the following month asked Congress to claw back $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding for both NPR and PBS, as part of a rescissions bill that could pass by a simple majority.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting had been slated to receive $535 million in federal funds in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 to distribute to radio and TV stations -- including NPR and PBS.

Upwards of 70% of CPB's budget goes toward more than 1,500 local public media stations.

NPR takes around 1% of its funding from CPB, while PBS receives up roughly 15% of its revenue from the nonprofit.

Closely related: Noted True Conservative David French says that Harvard has a constitutional right to the taxpayer's money forever, for whatever reason, no matter how poorly it serves the public trust.

Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard University?

On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration's defunding of Harvard is little more than "political retaliation." In the United States, we don't sentence people before hearing the verdict, the New York Times columnist said. Ignoring due process is "directly contrary to our constitutional principles."

David might not be aware that in addition to the joint-government task force's claim that Harvard leadership failed to meaningfully confront pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation of Jewish students, there's also a blistering internal university taskforce report that maintains that Harvard allowed antisemitism to permeate "coursework, social life, the hiring of some faculty members and the worldview of certain academic programs." Harvard concedes, "members of the Jewish and Israeli communities at Harvard reported treatment that was vicious and reprehensible."

The verdict is in.

I'd also say that the government does not have to conduct jury trials to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before defunding an entity.

But David French thinks it does. At least when his leftwing allies' are losing their taxpayer-funded sinecures.

But, I suppose, I'd pose the situation in another way: If a government investigation and internal review both found that white supremacists on Harvard campus were terrorizing black students and engaging in racist marchers and that their violent beliefs had found favor in the school's curriculums and in social life, would anyone on MSNBC argue that the government had an obligation to keep funding this school until a civil lawsuit worked its way through the courts? One suspects not.

Now, I'm not accusing David French of being blind to the struggles of Jewish students. I am accusing him of being blinded by the presence of Donald Trump. Are the president's motivations political? Probably. So what? So are those of Harvard's defenders.

Harvard, a private institution, can do as it likes. There's nothing illegal about coddling extremists or pumping out credentialed pseudointellectuals. If the Trump administration failed to follow a bureaucratic process before freezing funds to the university, fine. Get it done. But what "constitutional principle" dictates that the federal government must provide this specific institution with $3 billion in federal contracts and grants? Giving it to them was a policy decision made by the executive branch. Withdrawing the funding is the same.

...

If your answer is that the school feels a profound obligation to defend free expression, I suggest you speak to some pro-Israeli or pro-capitalist or pro-American or social conservative student on campus and see how comfortable they feel about airing opinions. Harvard finished last for the second year running in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's "College Free Speech Rankings" in 2024, along with Columbia University and New York University. The only speech Harvard values is the extremist variety.

This is in NYC, but this is going on at Harvard, too.

Pay them, Bigots!

Bonus: David French, who has instructed Christians about the True Meaning of Christianity as if he were Jesus Reborn for the past ten years, and who proclaimed God's New Revelation that Drag Queen Story Hours are "a blessing of liberty," thinks that Trump's meme is "dangerous" and "blasphemous."