Okay. Why?

Some of the public funds come by way of Pell Grants. What's so terrible about poor kids getting a top-tier education?

Other mechanisms are research grants. You don't think it's in the public's interest to incentivize graduate students at top institutions to do socially beneficial research?

Help me understand what your objection is to federal policy, and what you wish federal policy were instead.

Harvard has an endowment worth more than $50B. Harvard grads are the ruling class of our nation, and their system of legacy admissions mean it’s essentially a hereditary system of nobility. This endowment isn’t taxed, and generates huge returns. Its one thing to defend poor kids getting a leg up with federal grants, but I’m not sure the ones who pay for it are the same ones who benefit, and the system seems to be enormously profitable for the private universities.

I noticed you didn't come close to answering the question. Complaining that people who aren't you are making money isn't a good look, and certainly isn't a sound basis for federal public policy.

You indicated a problem with the way federal funds are spent. What section of what federal statute should be changed? In what way should it be changed?

So far you’ve used straw man (you don’t support poor kids going to college?) and an ad-hominem (complaining that people who aren’t you are making money…) attack in your responses, which indicates a lack of argument in good faith.

I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.

You said you opposed federal funding here. Pell Grants are federal funding. Accurate descriptions aren't straw men.

You expressed disapproval of the fact "[t]hat public funds can go to private schools like Harvard."

I tried to guess what you might mean, but it appears you've found those guesses insulting. So why don't you just clear it up so we aren't left guessing? What are the specific changes to federal law you propose as an alternative?

It’s not about specific changes to law, it’s about the principle of “Organizations with $50B in the bank probably don’t need federal funds.” Having them put skin in the game with an endowment tax would also be acceptable.

It’s not a straw man when poor kids do literally use federal grant programs to attend Harvard. It’s not a distortion or exaggeration of the original objection that federal monies went to Harvard.

I'll chime in with a suggestion. On average for every dollar of research money that goes to these institutions, another ~$0.70 is given to the bureaucracy to spend as it sees fit. The federal government could cap these rates at 40-50% down from 70% without a significant impact to research, since the research effort, including researcher salaries, are already paid from the direct funds. The bureaucracy will argue that it needs that extra money to keep the lights on, but in practice you see that the middle management tier of universities has expanded as a much higher rate than the research effort, suggesting it is relatively flush with cash compared to the boots on the ground types.

A lot of federal regulation of schools is only present thanks to funding. That means that by giving the school federal funding, the federal government receives some level of control.

In this case though, Harvard doesn't need it, and there are definitely enough Harvard graduates in the upper echelons of both the public servant and elected politician career paths of the federal government apparatus for no harm to ever happen to Harvard. But it's still an important point to keep in mind I think.