Conservatives like me once instinctively understood that expanding government power — even briefly — invites harm. Yet recent attempts by President Trump’s administration to use the tax code as a weapon reveal how easily partisanship can override wisdom.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has repeatedly threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status as part of his feud with the school over its response to antisemitism and perceived ideological bias. On Wednesday, he floated the idea of stripping other universities of their exemptions. Meanwhile, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, a Trump ally, accused Wikipedia’s parent organization of allowing foreign propaganda and suggested that it, too, might be failing its obligations as a nonprofit.
Many on the right have welcomed these aggressive moves as overdue pushback against liberal dominance in academia and media. That’s a mistake — one that conservatives could come to regret. Whether or not Mr. Trump ultimately succeeds, his attempt to weaponize the tax code sets a troubling and dangerous precedent.
If the executive branch can threaten Wikipedia and universities today, what would stop a leftist administration from targeting churches and synagogues tomorrow?
Imagine a scenario: It’s 2029 and a progressive Democrat sits in the Oval Office. Federal auditors descend on evangelical churches after pastors preach that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, labeling their words “political advocacy.” Synagogues face regulatory investigations for teachings on gender and sexuality that offend prevailing cultural orthodoxies. Faith-based charities, suddenly saddled with endless bureaucratic forms and invasive reporting requirements, find their missions suffocating beneath paperwork. Smaller congregations fold under legal expenses while larger institutions self-censor out of fear. Soon the pulpit is muted, faith leaders are intimidated into silence and communities are stripped of their authentic voices.
Far-fetched? Hardly. Unchecked executive power rarely contracts voluntarily. Progressives have long advocated re-examining the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that engage with politically sensitive issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. Conservatives rightly condemned the Obama administration when the Internal Revenue Service selectively scrutinized conservative Tea Party groups that applied for tax-exempt status, subjecting them to prolonged bureaucratic hurdles and legal battles.
What we are seeing today under Mr. Trump, however, is of a different scale. This administration is not merely engaging in administrative bias but openly using tax status threats as a political tool. It has elevated intimidation to official policy.
Such threats stand on dubious legal ground. Revoking tax-exempt status typically depends on clear-cut regulatory breaches or financial misconduct. These efforts have already ignited substantial backlash, and their ability to survive judicial scrutiny is doubtful.
Weaponizing tax policy to punish ideological opponents contradicts fundamental conservative principles about limiting government power. Conservatism insists that unchecked authority inevitably leads to abuse because human nature is inherently flawed and power corrupts easily. When government institutions — intended to be impartial guardians of law and order — are driven by partisan motives, they become instruments of oppression rather than protectors of liberty. This not only violates conservative ideals but also weakens public trust and undermines the very democratic institutions conservatives seek to preserve.
The wisest conservatives understood a simple truth: Preserving liberty demands practicing restraint, especially toward those you oppose. Ronald Reagan put it plainly when he said that freedom is “never more than one generation away from extinction.” Cowing political adversaries through executive fiat may realize short-term gains, but it guarantees long-term peril.
America’s constitutional order rests not merely on the formal separation of powers but also on self-restraint. Conservatives must resist today’s easy victories for the sake of tomorrow’s freedoms. The real safeguard against abuses is not simply legal boundaries but moral discipline. The preservation of our democratic institutions and constitutional freedoms demands that conservatives recommit practically, not just rhetorically, to the ideals of limited and responsible government.
It might seem fanciful to expect a Republican Party, still deeply enthralled by Mr. Trump’s combative brand of politics, to suddenly reclaim this kind of governance. Yet even now, within the G.O.P., there is a group that clings stubbornly to the conservative traditions of prudence and restraint. Figures such as Representative Don Bacon and Senator Rand Paul, former Representative Justin Amash and the scholar Yuval Levin continue to advocate politics defined by modesty and self-control rather than raw power and retribution.
This group, though currently outshouted and overshadowed, understands that enduring influence is built on moral clarity and consistency, not momentary dominance. If these conservatives and others who share their values can muster the courage to resist the excesses of the status quo, they could yet become an essential force for restoring balance and integrity to our political life.
The alternative — unchecked cycles of ideological retribution — risks permanently destabilizing the political and social fabric that makes America exceptional. Conservatives bear a unique responsibility to champion restraint, ensuring that government remains a servant of liberty rather than its master.
Joshua Claybourn is a lawyer and historian based in Indiana.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Today Harvard Is the Target. Tomorrow It Could Be Your Church. appeared first on New York Times.
