Two sets of institutions— each central parts of the infrastructure of a functioning democracy—find themselves facing a similar dilemma.
Higher ed institutions, and law firms.
In case people question the centrality of these institutions’ roles in our democracy, know that Trump and Vance fully understand:
That’s why Vance has declared universities and professors the enemy to what he and his allies seek to achieve.
And it’s why Trump has declared war on certain law firms—because he knows that, in our system of justice, robust representation of both sides in a dispute (including the side holding the government or political figures accountable) is essential. Without that balance, the system collapses.
Trump’s Strategy: Divide and Conquer
Beyond broad-based attacks, Trump is pushing a strategy more grotesque than what we’ve seen before: singling out individual universities, colleges and law firms; threatening them with deep damage; then extracting concessions that essentially end those institutions’ independence from the government itself.
He is demanding compliance.
And it begs the question that is being hotly debated at the moment.
What’s the best response?
Cut a deal, as some are doing, or defy?
Is it a painful choice? Yes. Trump intends on doing damage, and because of that, damage will inevitably be done either way.
But is it a hard choice?
Not at all.
It’s a no-brainer. Which is why it’s so astounding to witness so many established and once-respected institutions making the wrong choice.
Why is it a no-brainer?
Run each path to its logical conclusion.
Path 1. United Defiance
Defy.
Better yet, defy together. Fight back as one.
Publicly. Politically. In court. In every way you can. Joined together, mustering every ounce of leverage and every asset at your disposal to stand up to the abuse by the government.
Stating, firmly and as one: “We will not comply. Not one of us will cave. Not one of us will give away our independence, or our institutional integrity. Doing so would be worse than anything you can threaten us with.”
What happens when you defy, together?
It’s uncertain, of course.
There will be punishment. And pain. And loss.
But court battles and public battles and political battles could minimize that damage in the short- and long-term. Most court cases so far are succeeding.
An effective pushback could also alter the politics of the moment, creating opportunity in the near- and long-term. Some may abandon you, but others will rally to your side.
But in the end, it’s unclear how bad the damage will be. How long it will last. Who will prevail, and when.
But what is certain is that at a key moment, your institution stood with democracy, the rule of law. And critically, for all stakeholders and constituents, your institution stood for its own independence and integrity. Long term, as I explain below, that’s the key.
2. Divided Compliance
What happens when you cave? When you comply? One at a time.
Individually, it’s a disaster.
You and your institution cross the rubicon. Once Trump has shown that an inappropriate attack can work against you, you’ve lost. More demands will come; you’ll be right back where you started, and with no more leverage than you had the first time. Actually, you’ll have less—because you’ve already shown you will cave when forced to. So you are wholly at the whims of Trump, who has no reason not to demand more. When asked, you will cave again.
Collectively, it’s also a disaster. Beyond yourself, you sold out all other institutions as well. You have shown that the strategy works, so you have put a target on all of their backs. You have invited or strengthened the attack on them; you are the example that will be used as to why they too should accede; and you are the example shown (in contrast) if they are punished for not acceding.
And that’s it.
The downward spiral that begins from caving is as certain as can be.
And the consequences only grow worse. Here’s why…
You MUST Pick Sides
In his book “Erasing History,” Jason Stanley captures the inevitable stakes of this decision for higher education. But what he writes also applies to law firms, corporations, and other institutions.
He writes that higher ed has generally served to “safeguard and improve the institution of democracy.”
But, he warns, not always.
“Education does not always serve this purpose—it can also be wielded against democracy and in service of hierarchy….[E]ducation can also support an anti-democratic agenda.” He cites Russia and North Korea as examples. Orban is doing the same in Hungary.
The same can be said of other institutions. They can advance democracy…or anti-democracy.
Because they are part of the fabric of a healthy democracy, Trump and Vance want to destroy higher ed and law firms as they are currently constituted, and if/when they stand in their way.
But for their purpose, there’s a goal even better than outright destruction.
It’s conversion.
Harnessing those institutions—their credibility, their assets, their infrastructure, their talent and constituents—in service of their anti-democratic cause. Their participation can advance that agenda, and reframe it as legitimate.
And that means the path of compliance is not only an inevitably losing path for the institutions that choose it.
With no leverage to stop the slide, it’s also a path that ultimately, inevitably dedicates the infrastructure of those institutions to serve “anti-democracy,” as Stanley puts it. And by complying, they’re making it far more likely that others end up on that road as well.
If independent higher ed institutions and law firms are part of the bulwark of democracy, higher ed institutions and law firms that sacrifice their independence and become compliant to the state ultimately become part of the bulwark of anti-democracy.
And that places those institutions on the darkest pages in the annals of history.
Don’t end up there.
Do you defy united, or do you comply divided?
There’s only one choice.
Day 121 — April 2, 2025
Tariff Day at the White House.
Delivering on a long-pronounced obsession and misunderstanding of who pays for them (you do!), Trump announced a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports to the United States. He also announced retaliatory tariffs against 60 nations, including some of America’s closest allies and trading partners.
The retaliatory rates reach as high as 34% (China), 20% (EU), 49% (Cambodia) and 37% (Bangladesh).
Analysts are predicting price hikes (thousands per year per family), inflation, along with drops in consumer spending and looming recession (when and not if)…
while a few Republicans—most notable former VP Pence—are decrying the tariffs as the largest tax hike in modern history.
Pence also pointed out that Americans already see through Trump’s tariff disinformation:
Still, with disaster looming, most GOPers simply go along with it all.
Remember their names.
