STM Blog
Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so
The Trump administration’s funding cuts to Harvard were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, emphasizing that government cannot retaliate against institutions for their views. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting free speech and dissent in American democracy.
Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University
When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.
But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.
The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.
Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.
Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rn77N4VGkcU?wmode=transparent&start=0 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on April 15, 2025, spoke about President Donald Trump’s moves against Harvard.
Protection for dissent and disagreement
In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.
First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.
Supreme Court has seen this before
The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.
In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.
In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.
And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.
Supreme Court’s contemporary signals
More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.
The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.
The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.
Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.
While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.
Long history of retaliation
While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.
In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.
What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.
Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.
These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.
Why this matters beyond the courts
The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.
The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.
A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.
The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Link: https://stmdailynews.com/%f0%9f%93%9c-who-created-blogging-a-look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-blog/
unknown
Did Jackie Gleason See Aliens? Inside the Strange Nixon–UFO Legend
Jackie Gleason reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Here is what we know—and why the remarkable story remains unverified.
The beloved comedian reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Decades later, the extraordinary story remains fascinating—but unverified.
Jackie Gleason is remembered as “The Great One,” the larger-than-life entertainer who turned bus driver Ralph Kramden into one of television’s most enduring characters on The Honeymooners. Away from the cameras, however, Gleason had another consuming interest: UFOs, psychic phenomena and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
That interest eventually became the foundation of one of the strangest stories ever associated with an American president and a Hollywood celebrity. According to Gleason’s second wife, Beverly McKittrick, her husband came home late one night in 1973 and claimed that President Richard Nixon had helped him see the preserved bodies of extraterrestrial beings at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida.
Did Jackie Gleason really see aliens?
The honest answer is that we do not know. The allegation is remarkable, but the available evidence never rises above an uncorroborated story attributed to Gleason years after the supposed event.
Gleason’s fascination with UFOs was real
There is little question that Gleason took the UFO subject seriously. He reportedly assembled a substantial personal library devoted to UFOs, the paranormal and related mysteries. His unusual circular home in New York—often nicknamed “The Mothership”—only strengthened his public association with flying saucers, although its distinctive architecture is not evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter.
Gleason also had a genuine social connection with Nixon. The two men shared an interest in golf and spent time together in Florida. That documented friendship is the factual starting point from which the more sensational story grew.
The alleged trip to Homestead Air Force Base
McKittrick said that Gleason returned to their Florida home at about 11:30 one evening looking disturbed. According to her account, he told her that Nixon had arrived without the usual presidential entourage and taken him to Homestead Air Force Base, south of Miami.
Once there, Gleason allegedly entered a secured building where he saw small humanoid bodies preserved inside glass-topped containers. Published versions differ over the number of bodies and some physical details, but they generally describe child-sized beings with oversized heads.
Importantly, McKittrick did not claim to have accompanied the men or witnessed anything at the base. Her account was based entirely on what she said Gleason told her after returning home.
The story became public in 1983, years after the alleged visit and after the couple had divorced. It circulated widely through tabloid reporting, UFO publications and later books, gradually becoming part of UFO folklore.
Why the story remains unverified
No authenticated photograph, visitor record, military document or firsthand statement from Nixon has emerged to confirm the alleged trip. Gleason also never provided investigators with a signed affidavit describing the experience.
UFO researcher Larry Bryant reportedly sought records from Homestead and tried to obtain a statement from Gleason, but those efforts produced no confirming documentation. Gleason’s refusal to address the account publicly has sometimes been portrayed as suspicious, but silence is not proof that an event occurred.
There is another important complication: McKittrick later expressed uncertainty about her former husband’s story.
During telephone interviews conducted by researcher Kenny Young in 2003, she stood by her recollection that Gleason told her he had seen “dead aliens.” She also acknowledged that, as the years passed, she wondered whether he might have invented the explanation because he had been out late. She declined to appear on camera and said the story should be authenticated first.
Her later comments do not establish that the account was false, but they considerably weaken any attempt to treat it as verified history.
Could a president have slipped away unnoticed?
Some versions of the legend emphasize that Nixon supposedly drove to Gleason’s house alone and then entered a military installation without his Secret Service detail. Presidents have occasionally sought privacy or slipped away from tightly managed schedules, but a secret nighttime excursion of this nature would have involved serious security and logistical obstacles.
The claim becomes even more difficult to accept when we consider what Nixon allegedly revealed. If the United States possessed extraterrestrial bodies, granting a comedian personal access to them would have represented an extraordinary breach of national security—with no apparent official purpose and no surviving documentation.
None of that makes the episode logically impossible. It does, however, mean that the story requires exceptionally strong evidence. That evidence has never appeared.
A compelling legend, not a confirmed encounter
The Jackie Gleason story endures because it combines three irresistible ingredients: a famous comedian fascinated by UFOs, a secretive American president and a nighttime visit to a military base containing an alleged government secret.
What can be established is that Gleason was deeply interested in UFOs, knew Nixon and was said by his former wife to have made an extraordinary claim. What cannot be established is that Nixon took him to Homestead Air Force Base or that preserved extraterrestrial bodies were ever stored there.
So, did Jackie Gleason see aliens?
Perhaps he believed that he did—or perhaps he simply told an unforgettable story. Until corroborating evidence emerges, the alleged encounter belongs in the intriguing borderland between celebrity history and American UFO mythology.
Sources and further reading
- The Black Vault: Jackie Gleason and the Pickled Alien
- University of Miami Libraries: The Jackie Gleason Collection
- U.S. Department of Defense: All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office
Step into The Unknown, where STM Daily News explores the strange phenomena, unexplained encounters and enduring mysteries that continue to challenge what we think we know. From UFO sightings and paranormal events to historical mysteries and unusual scientific discoveries, we examine the stories, evidence and competing explanations—without losing our sense of wonder. https://stmdailynews.com/science/unknown/
Community
PenFed Foundation Raises Over $1.2M for Veterans and Military Families at 23rd Annual Military Heroes Golf Classic
The PenFed Foundation says it raised over $1.2 million for veterans and military families at its 23rd annual Military Heroes Golf Classic.
The PenFed Foundation for Military Heroes said it raised more than $1.2 million to support veterans and military families during its 23rd annual Military Heroes Golf Classic, held Monday, Aug. 31, according to a PRNewswire release. The nonprofit, based in the Washington, D.C. region, focuses on helping veterans transition “from service to success” through programs and grants aimed at military-connected communities.
“We are deeply grateful to our partners and supporters whose generosity and dedication make this event—and the Foundation’s work—possible,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Bradford J. “B.J.” Shwedo, president of the PenFed Foundation, in a statement announcing the fundraising total.
At a dinner held the night before the Golf Classic, PenFed Credit Union President/CEO and PenFed Foundation CEO James Schenck recognized Ed Cody for 25 years of service on the foundation’s board of directors. Cody also serves as chairman of the PenFed Credit Union board and was credited with helping guide initiatives including Defender’s Lodge, the Afghan Rescue and Resettlement Program, the Veteran Entrepreneur Program, and grants supporting wounded, ill, and injured service members.
The foundation said it has provided more than $55 million in financial support to veterans, active-duty service members, and military families since it was founded in 2001. It also noted that PenFed Credit Union covers salaries and administrative costs, allowing more donations to go directly to programs.
What to watch for: How the foundation allocates the new $1.2M across its veteran transition and emergency support programs—and whether it announces new grant rounds tied to entrepreneurship and resettlement work.
SOURCE PenFed Foundation
Subscribe to our newsletter STM Morning Brief!
Entertainment
Apple Music Super Bowl LX Halftime Show Starring Bad Bunny Wins 7 Emmys, Sets New Record
Executive produced by Roc Nation and JAY-Z, the show becomes the most-awarded halftime production in Emmy history.
The Apple Music Super Bowl LX Halftime Show starring Bad Bunny took home seven Emmy Awards at the 78th Emmy Awards, making it the most-awarded Super Bowl halftime show in Emmy history, according to Roc Nation. The live spectacle—executive produced by Roc Nation and JAY-Z—won across major production categories, underscoring how the halftime stage has evolved into a full-scale, awards-caliber live television event.
The record-setting wins included Outstanding Variety Special (Live), Outstanding Music Direction, Outstanding Directing for a Variety Special, Outstanding Choreography for Variety or Reality Programming, Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Variety Series or Special, Outstanding Lighting Design/Lighting Direction for a Special, and Outstanding Technical Direction and Camerawork for a Special. Roc Nation also noted the show set a global viewership record, pulling 4.157 billion views in 24 hours across global broadcast, YouTube, and social platforms.
Beyond the trophies and viewership numbers, the halftime show leaned into big-name star power with special guest performers Lady Gaga and Ricky Martin, plus additional appearances from Karol G, Cardi B, Jessica Alba, Pedro Pascal, Young Miko, and others. The sweep signals not just a win for the artists on stage, but for the behind-the-scenes creative teams turning the halftime show into one of the most technically ambitious live productions on television.
What to watch for: With Emmy recognition now firmly in the conversation, expect future halftime shows to push even harder on cinematic staging, choreography, and broadcast innovation—because the bar (and the awards) just got higher.
Source: Roc Nation (PRNewswire), Sept. 6, 2026
Link to original press release: https://prnmedia.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-apple-music-super-bowl-lx-halftime-starring-bad-bunny–executive-produced-by-roc-nation–jay-z-wins-seven-emmys-302870842.html
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
