Trump's attacks on universities and law firms threaten the right to dissent

This is authoritarian repression.

Apr 02, 2025

A note on executive orders: It is important to remember that an executive order is essentially a memo, an instruction from the president to executive branch agencies and staff, on how to exercise the executive’s existing powers. Executive orders that impinge on constitutional rights, stray into the realm of legislative authority, or otherwise exceed the president’s power can be struck down by the courts.

Law firms

Over the last month, Trump has signed four executive orders (EOs) imposing penalties on law firms with a history of filing lawsuits opposing his policies and hiring lawyers who investigated his conduct. Already, these EOs are having their intended effect, dissuading and intimidating lawyers from representing people seeking to defend their rights in the face of the administration’s authoritarian actions.

Biden-era officials said they’re having trouble finding lawyers willing to defend them. The volunteers and small nonprofits forming the ground troops of the legal resistance to Trump administration actions say that the well-resourced law firms that once would have backed them are now steering clear. The result is an extraordinary threat to the fundamental constitutional rights of due process and legal representation, they said — and a far weaker effort to challenge Trump’s actions in court than during his first term.

March 6: Trump signed an EO targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, successfully defended against Trump’s legal assault on the 2020 election, and represented the Democratic National Committee in last year’s election. The EO directs agency heads to terminate government contracts with Perkins Coie clients, deny all Perkins Coie employees access to federal buildings and federal employees, and suspend security clearances for all Perkins Coie employees.

March 14: Trump signed an EO targeting Paul Weiss, a law firm that represented detainees held at Guantanamo (under Bush/Obama), offered free legal services to people seeking and providing abortions post-Dobbs, and worked pro bono to reunite the families of immigrants who were separated at the southern border during Trump’s first term. Critically, for Trump’s purposes, lawyers who at some point worked for Paul Weiss have connections to Robert Mueller, filed lawsuits relating to the January 6 insurrection, and investigated Trump’s finances.

March 25: Trump signed an EO targeting Jenner & Block, one of the leading pro bono law firms in the country, which is representing transgender clients challenging Trump’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors. The EO cites this legal challenge, saying Jenner & Block “supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex,” as well as the law firm’s work with Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.

March 27: Trump signed an EO targeting WilmerHale, a law firm that represented Guantanamo detainees (under Bush/Obama) and brought legal challenges against Georgia’s gerrymandered voting maps. WilmerHale also hired two prosecutors who worked with Mueller (who was himself a partner at the firm in the mid-2010s).

Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale filed lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of Trump’s EOs, and all three quickly secured temporary restraining orders. In Perkins Coie’s case, District Judge Beryl Howell found that the firm is likely to succeed on its First Amendment argument that the EO is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, its 5th Amendment argument that the EO violates due process, and its Sixth Amendment argument that the EO interferes with the right to counsel. Yet, even with court orders blocking Trump’s sanctions in place, none of the top 20 law firms in the U.S. have agreed to sign on to an amicus brief defending Perkins Coie out of concern “they will face retaliation by the Trump administration.”

Paul Weiss, apparently not willing to stand up for themselves, their clients, or the rule of law, did not challenge the EO against their firm. Instead, they bent the knee and kissed Trump’s ring. According to the White House, the law firm pledged to abandon its diversity, equality, and inclusion initiatives, promised $40 million in pro bono work to advance Trump’s initiatives, and “acknowledged the wrongdoing” of former partner Mark Pomerantz, who investigated Trump’s businesses as part of the New York District Attorney’s office.

Emboldened by Paul Weiss’s submission, Elon Musk took to Twitter the following day to attack Skadden Arps for “engaging in systematic lawfare” against Dinesh D’Souza’s “2000 Mules,” a debunked election denialism film that contained defamatory statements about a Georgia voter. Within days, Skadden executives were preemptively groveling at Trump’s feet. To avoid an EO targeting their firm, Skadden Arps agreed to provide $100 million worth of free legal services for Trump’s causes and abandon its diversity initiatives. “This was essentially a settlement,” Trump said. “We appreciate Skadden coming to the table… It’s a shame what’s going on, it’s a shame, but we very much appreciate their coming to the table.”

Days later, reports surfaced that Trump was preparing to issue an EO targeting Willkie Farr, a law firm that employs two January 6 investigators and former Second Gentleman, Doug Emhoff. Within less than 24 hours, Wilkie submitted to Trump’s demands and agreed to provide $100 million worth of free legal services for his causes.

Paul’s surrender, and Skadden’s and Farr’s anticipatory obedience, will only fuel more and larger attacks on the democratic apparatuses that protect the people’s constitutional rights. As history professor Timothy Snyder writes in “On Tyranny,” “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” Obeying in advance “is teaching power what it can do.” Securing the submission of BigLaw firms, which pull in trillions of dollars a year and are best positioned to mount an opposition, will encourage the administration to expand its authoritarian conquest to oppressing law clinics and nonprofits that often challenge its policies. Then, without representation, our rights become meaningless and the courts useless.

Universities

Another common target of burgeoning authoritarian regimes are universities—independent centers of ideas and dissent that often provide flash points for mass movements of opposition. Totalitarian leaders since the time of Mussolini and Hitler have recognized the threat of independent thought and the power that can be gained by replacing liberal education with state-sponsored propaganda.

On March 7, the Trump administration announced it canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” Like Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, who maligned professors and students as “terrorists” for resisting his attempts to install cronies in university leadership, antisemitism is just a pretense to justify exerting control over universities and intimidating students and staff.

Within two weeks, Columbia agreed to many of Trump’s demands, including the hiring of “special officers” to arrest future protestors, banning of face masks to conceal identities, and installation of a political officer to supervise the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies (MESAAS) Department. It is not clear if their concessions will result in a restoration of the pulled funding, but as the Columbia Spectator writes, it is clear that appeasing a dictator only encourages more oppressive measures:

Columbia had a chance to rise to the moment and to lead other universities, as well as civil society, by showing how to stand up to this illegal and dangerous campaign. However, the letter the University submitted failed this test…The most important fact is that all those who are watching—both those looking for Columbia to lead, including Columbia’s alumni, and those looking to bring the University to heel—and all those who understand the importance of this moment interpret this response as appeasement. We know what appeasing authoritarian leaders leads to: new sets of demands, even more preposterous than the first.

Case in point: Harvard University, which—in a classic case of obeying in advance—dismissed the Center for Middle Eastern Studies faculty leadership after seeing what happened at Columbia University. Five days later, the Trump administration announced it is “reviewing” Harvard’s $9 billion multi-year grant commitments anyway. “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination - all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry - has put its reputation in serious jeopardy,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said. Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, responded not by vowing to fight back, but by bowing to the fiction that the attack on higher education is about antisemitism.

The capitulation of some of the wealthiest and most influential schools in the nation is also tacitly encouraging the threat of ‘secret police’ raids on campus. Columbia did not speak out when ICE arrested and disappeared student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the U.S. According to the administration’s own admission, Khalil did not commit a crime; they are seeking to deport him for taking part in pro-Palestinian protests they say were “aligned to Hamas,” making him a national security threat. A flood of other immigration actions followed: Department of Homeland Security agents executed numerous search warrants at residences on campus; Ranjani Srinivasan, a Columbia Fulbright Scholarship recipient, had her valid student visa revoked and fled to Canada; Yunseo Chung, a permanent resident who participated in Palestinian protests on campus, had her green card revoked, evaded agents, and sued to prevent detainment; and Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian from the West Bank who attended protests, was arrested for allegedly overstaying her student visa.

Meanwhile, Trump is threatening to prohibit “pro-Hamas” colleges from enrolling any foreign students, Rubio is bragging about revoking at least 300 foreign students’ visas for thought crimes, and ICE is unilaterally canceling students’ immigration status without notifying them or their schools. This is what actually supporting terror looks like - abusing the power of the government to induce fear and oppress the masses.

One Jewish student at Columbia University told CNN the policy changes have created a “climate of fear” as they return to classes to finish the school year. “We’re going to be walking around campus knowing that at any moment, really, we could be harassed by one of these new security officers they’re hiring,” said the student, a lead organizer for Columbia University Jews for Ceasefire who spoke with CNN anonymously due to safety and privacy concerns.
“…Or perhaps even by a police officer in certain cases, for simply sharing our viewpoints, which is a gross violation of free speech,” the student said. He added the mask ban is notable “due to its clear intention of surveilling students.”

Now that the Trump administration has successfully taken control of Columbia’s MESAAS department, it will feel emboldened to assert control over other academic programs it deems problematic. Departments of African American studies, Gender Studies, History, Literature, and Anthropology in schools across the country likely violate Trump’s purported bans on teaching “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” every semester. It is only a matter of time before the same threats leveled against Columbia are applied to all universities to force compliance, creating a national “patriotic education” standard not unlike that of Mussolini’s Italy.

KeepTrack

Discussion about this post