A key element in the authoritarian playbook is the targeting of perceived enemies who can stand as a bulwark against political leaders amassing unchecked power. The second administration of President Donald Trump, since Inauguration Day, has been aggressively targeting a wide range of key civil society organizations—such as universities, law firms, media companies, nonprofits, and business leaders—in attempts to have them comply with a long list of demands that arguably undermine their constitutional rights. Organizations under threat have some reason to submit to the administration, especially as they face intimidating investigations into their free speech, restricted access to government spaces, and cancellation of federal grants based on their use of certain disfavored words, among others. However, huge risks accompany submission. And ultimately, too many civil society organizations failing to stand up to the administration’s unreasonable, coercive demands could hasten the degradation of U.S. democracy.
![]()
This article discusses four major risks for organizations that bow to the Trump administration’s unlawful or unreasonable demands. These include indirectly granting even more power to the administration, facing ongoing and unrelenting pressure for concessions, undermining institutional credibility, and affecting the trajectory of the fragile U.S. democracy.
Giving into threats without a fight grants the administration powers—and its actions legitimacy—that it does not necessarily possess
The Trump administration’s attacks on perceived enemies—particularly at law firms and in higher education—are unprecedented, and their outcome is far from settled. The Trump administration issued executive orders targeting specific law firms by taking away their security clearances, restricting access to federal buildings, and calling for a review of their federal contracts. Some law firms immediately bowed to the administration, while others fought back. Law firms that cut deals with the administration now owe a combined nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to causes the administration supports. In contrast, law firms that challenged the administration are faring better. Lower-court judges, including those appointed by Republican presidents, are consistently ruling against the administration’s executive orders targeting law firms, finding that the firms’ First Amendment rights, among other constitutional rights, are being violated. U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, blocking executive action against law firm Susman Godfrey, stated, “The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power.”
Challenging President Trump and the Trump administration carries risks and costs, but settling means guaranteed loss. ABC News, for example, settled a defamation case with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million despite having “an exceptionally strong case,” according to media law experts. Conversely, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have chosen to fight back, and all have won litigation brought by Trump against them throughout the years. President Trump was even ordered by a court to pay nearly $400,000 to The New York Times for the legal fees it incurred defending itself against his frivolous claims.
Organizations that caved to initial demands are facing increased pressure for more concessions and greater government involvement in their affairs
Once under the searing gaze of the Trump administration, bowing to demands does not remove the glare. For example, in March, Columbia University received a letter from the administration with similar demands to those that would be sent to Harvard University weeks later. Under threat of losing $400 million in grants, the university largely agreed to the Trump administration’s demands, including policies restricting campus protest and overhauling its Middle Eastern studies department. President Trump told reporters in late May that Columbia was working with the administration to find a solution, temporarily taking the university “off that hot seat.” One week later, the Department of Education abruptly reversed course and notified Columbia’s accreditor that the university allegedly violated federal antidiscrimination laws and “fails to meet the standards for accreditation,” which threatens the university’s ability to provide financial aid and legitimate course credits for students. Negotiations are on ongoing, and the university’s grants have not been restored.
Relatedly, the law firms that settled with the administration are facing the fact that meeting the administration’s initial demands does not free them from future coercion. The firms agreed to complete uncontroversial work—such as helping veterans—but the president and other high-level government officials have floated that their pro bono services may be used to negotiate trade deals, defend the coal industry, or even for the president himself.
Compromising on values undermines institutional credibility and alignment with many peers who are standing up
The tide is shifting against presidential overreach, and many organizations standing up find themselves in solidarity with others, which can be a vital factor in slowing democratic backsliding. In one example, in February, Dean and Executive Vice President of Georgetown Law William Treanor rebuked the Trump administration’s intimidation and intrusion, writing that the Constitution “guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it.” Georgetown Law stood alone, taking a leap of faith in the early days of a new and volatile administration. Soon after, Harvard University received the Trump administration’s demands that intruded on the university’s management of its own campus affairs, and the university made the courageous decision to protect its independence, suing the administration twice. Both institutions’ courage proved valuable, and more than 650 college presidents and leaders of scholarly societies consequently signed a letter standing against government intrusion while pledging to continue improving campus safety and inclusion. Harvard is now reportedly back in settlement talks with the administration and must undoubtably consider how giving into demands—and the high likelihood that the Trump administration would frame any agreement as a victory over Harvard—could undermine its institutional credibility and fracture solidarity efforts across civil society.
Similarly, an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie, a law firm targeted by the administration, garnered supportive signatures from more than 500 law firms. Charitable organizations, in expectation of future attacks, are coming together in advance to rebuke any attempt to interfere with their missions; 700 organizations have already signed on to say they are “united behind our First Amendment right to give as an expression of our own distinct values.” More than 280 business leaders—such as former and current leadership from companies across industries, including LinkedIn, Procter & Gamble, and American Airlines—called on Congress and the administration “to restore funding for research and financial aid, respect due process, and uphold the independence of America’s universities.” These are positive signs that much of civil society is organizing, as this collective power means anyone who has the courage to resist authoritarian-minded requests or actions will not be alone.
The tide is shifting against presidential overreach, and many organizations standing up find themselves in solidarity with others, which can be a vital factor in slowing democratic backsliding.
By contrast, some law firms that made deals with the Trump administration are facing negative consequences from their peers. For example, partners at various law firms that struck agreements with the Trump administration have left their posts. An increasing number of law students are reporting that they are only interested in working for firms that align with their values, sending a clear message to institutions that capitulate to this administration. Major companies—such as Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, and Oracle—are now changing or considering rethinking which law firms will represent them amid concerns about the lack of integrity of law firms that made deals.
Civil society organizations’ decisions today will likely have an outsize impact on the trajectory of U.S. democracy, raising the urgency of holding the line against authoritarianism
The survival of democracies worldwide in large part relies on an activated civil society that holds accountable leaders who dismantle the essential checks and balances in a constitutional democracy. These critical organizations can also inform and help mobilize peaceful protest or noncooperation against authoritarian regimes, providing engaged citizens with tools to channel their views through productive means and reject political violence. Studies have shown that nonviolent movements that mobilize just 3.5 percent of the population can greatly weaken or topple an authoritarian government. However, civil society is not an unfaltering source of pro-democracy power. Civil society organizations in some weak democracies have been unable to counter slides toward authoritarianism due to factors such as the power of elite interests.
For peaceful mass resistance or mobilization to be successful, individual participants must see that others too are ready to take the risks that accompany standing up to an antidemocratic regime. Universities, law firms, media organizations, nonprofits, and business leaders carry an outsize responsibility in their decisions that will influence whether civil society will be a bulwark for U.S. democracy or will allow the slow breakdown of liberty.
Read more
Conclusion
From freedom of expression encouraging innovation to accountability restraining corrupt officials, the United States’ economic growth and quality of life rely on continually strengthening American democracy. American institutions of civil society are now on the front lines of defending the freedoms and prosperity of everyday people. Organizations facing a difficult choice between bowing down or standing up should remember that their seemingly small decisions can have immense significance for the future of the United States’ democracy.
The author would like to thank Michael Sozan for his gracious input into this column.