|
What are the ethical obligations of institutions attacked by President Trump? Should they resist—at what cost? Should they “cave” to Trump’s demands in order to avoid penalties he might impose? What do they owe to their employees, to their profession, to their shareholders? And what are the ethical responsibilities of the rest of us watching our institutions being attacked? Trump’s blatant attacks on media, universities, law firms, nonprofits, judges and other institutions are to date the hallmarks of his second administration. He has attacked the oldest trading partners of the U.S.—Canada and Mexico—with a blizzard of promised tariffs. Over the past three weeks he has been on a campaign against prestigious law firms and universities. Since his inauguration, he has even attacked non-political institutions such as the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian Institution and the nonpartisan Institute for Peace. Perhaps like you, I have struggled to understand the vision behind all these actions. But just a week ago, David Leonhardt of The New York Times crystallized my understanding of Trump’s actions in a revealing podcast (transcript here). Leonhardt argues that Trump really has only two agendas—a vindictiveness agenda and a domination agenda. Trump is determined to seek retribution on anyone who offended him during his first term, in the investigations of the January 6 riot or in prosecutions over the past four years. Add anyone who is opposing his most recent actions, and you have a very large number of targets for his vengeance. He told MAGA voters during the election, “I am your retribution,” though it appears that he is only focused on seeking his own personal retribution. (See comprehensive AP article on targets of his retribution here.) Trump’s domination agenda was on display from the first days of his term when he sought to “take over” the Kennedy Center, making himself chairman. It was hard to understand why this step was a priority, but some argue Trump imagines himself as a cultural leader as well as a political leader. Also, he may still be offended by Kennedy Center honors recipients who refused his invitation to a White House reception during his first term, making a move against the Kennedy Center as part of both his domination and vengeance agendas. More concerning are his steps to dominate Congress by threatening any Republican who even mildly questions his actions and his threats to impeach judges who rule against him. Many have argued he is systematically emasculating all America’s institutions on the path to authoritarian rule—the media, Congress, independent federal agencies, universities, non-profits, and finally, the courts and the justice system. I am not sure he has such a coherent vision, but I think he does want to dominate every institution in American life, even the row of billionaires he lined up behind him at the inauguration! His recent actions against influential law firms and universities seem designed to silence potential critics and make it easier to achieve his dominance agenda. The targeted law firms have represented individuals and institutions challenging government actions. University leaders, faculty and students have been among the vocal critics of MAGA and Trump initiatives. There is no doubt the initial attacks are designed to intimidate other law firms and universities, thereby establishing that Trump should not be challenged. Let’s call these verbal attacks and executive actions for what they are—a blatant form of bullying. If Trump can bully these supposedly independent institutions into silence and compliance with his wishes, his dominance agenda will be advanced and his future actions less likely to be challenged. We know a lot about bullies. Every middle and high school has had to deal with them in recent decades. Bullies are individuals who desperately need to feed their self-image of being important, popular and in control, and do so by belittling and terrorizing others. Bullies celebrate when others “cave” or submit to their bullying. Trump’s need to dominate has been clear from early in his business life when he bullied contractors, refusing to pay what he owed, and in his media career, where he celebrated his ability to shout “YOU’RE FIRED.” We know bullies are never satisfied. Canada and Mexico tried to meet Trump’s early demands to help seal the borders, only to have him say nothing is enough and that he is going ahead with broad tariffs. Taking over the Kennedy Center is not enough; now he has gone after the Institute for Peace and the Smithsonian Institution, not because they are policy priorities but because they are prestigious cultural and research institutions that will showcase his dominance. Attacking Columbia University for its weak response to antisemitism was not enough; Trump officials demanded control over middle east studies departments. The law firm Paul Weiss was humbled, not just to suppress DEI efforts, but to promise $40 million of pro-bono legal services for causes Trump picks. Trump’s verbal attacks on judges who ruled against his administration have now escalated to defying a federal district judge by violating his order to stop delivering Venezuelan immigrants to an El Salvadoran prison. His dominance efforts escalated even further last week when he ordered every state to require ID for voting. The President has no power to tell states how to run their elections. So how can a person or institution being bullied respond? Why did law firm Skadden Arps also sign an agreement with Trump officials to avoid penalties, whereas Jenner & Block and Wilmer Hale refuse and instead countersue the administration? Was one strategy ethical and the other not? I have found it useful to review strategies schools and psychologists recommend to deal with bullying in schools. They are surprisingly useful in developing a strategy to resist Trump’s actions. First, call it what it is and tell others. Getting a perspective on the fact that one is being bullied and enlisting others to talk about it is a first step. Just understanding the bully’s strategy can lead to clearer thinking. Bullying only succeeds in silence. Second, avoid the bully if you can. It is certainly acceptable for Mexico to step up its immigration and fentanyl enforcement when demanded by Trump. So also for Columbia University to beef up its student disciplinary system and commit to a stronger defense against antisemitism. No one will fault the many less prominent universities or law firms today who are lying low, as long as they do not have to compromise their missions. But it is also important to know when you compromise your mission and identity. Some university presidents have argued Columbia crossed a line in agreeing to constraints on its academic programs. One might accept that Paul Weiss agreed to tone down its own DEI programs, but critics argue it crossed a line in forfeiting its right to select its own clients. Third, use the buddy system. Join with other universities, law firms and institutions to resist pressure and controls. United action brings some protection and focuses a spotlight on the bully’s tactics, not on the vulnerability of the single victim. Perkins Coie, which had decided to resist Trump’s bullying, hired the prestigious litigation firm of Williams & Connolly to defend it. Other firms should file friend-of-the-court briefs in support. Universities can band together with other educational institutions to resist pressures. Fourth, bystanders should do what they can to support the person or institution bullied. Bullying relies on others being cowed into silence or tolerating the bullying. Every citizen should oppose the attempt to dominate the media, universities, law firms, independent agencies, and certainly judges. We can talk to our friends about the Trump efforts to bully society’s institutions. We should praise those institutions which resist and those who stand with them. We can patronize firms that resist pressure to cooperate with the bully, for example by sustaining their DEI programs. More resistance to bullying is required of institutions who have more capacity to resist. Prestigious universities and law firms have a greater capacity to resist. One commentator even suggested the richest universities should be willing to draw on some of their endowments to resist government defunding threats and champion academic freedom. When many political voices have been neutered, it is critical for other prominent civic leaders to speak up. The vengeance and domination strategies will only succeed if they isolate their targets one by one and silence the voices of those who object. We all have a stake in defeating the bully.
|
