In recent months, President Donald Trump has launched a brutal campaign to bend America’s most influential institutions to his will. He has threatened and cajoled institutions in Big Law, Big Tech, elite universities, and the military-industrial complex.
Consider the legal sector. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, one of the nation’s premier firms, relented under pressure to provide $100 million in pro bono services for initiatives supported by the Trump administration. This move came after the White House threatened to revoke security clearances and terminate federal contracts, actions that could have crippled the firm. Similarly, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison capitulated to Trump’s demands by pledging $40 million in pro bono work for Trump-approved causes and altering its internal policies, including fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These concessions were made under duress but were widely denounced as shameful acquiescence.
Trump’s ire has targeted academia with equal fury. Previously renowned for its commitment to academic freedom, Columbia University saw $400 million in federal funding revoked for scurrilous reasons. The administration’s demands included placing specific departments under receivership and altering admissions policies. With these threats, Columbia’s leadership wilted. Trump enforcers are now emboldened to wage similar campaigns against other universities.
In the tech industry, Meta (formerly Facebook) agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over his account suspensions following the January 6 Capitol attack. This settlement, which strangely but tellingly included a significant donation to the nonprofit responsible for Trump’s future presidential library, was wholly unnecessary. Meta would likely have won its case and had the resources to fend off the administration easily, but it chose to comply instead.
These capitulations represent a troubling acquiescence to authoritarian tactics.
But they also raise interesting issues for Democrats. Historically, progressives have argued that Democrats should adopt a more confrontational stance toward powerful institutions—Big Pharma, Big Tech, the military-industrial complex, Wall Street—to enact change for regular people. Yet Democratic leaders often take a more conciliatory approach, fearing reprisal from these moneyed interests. The prevailing wisdom suggested that aggressively poking these formidable forces would provoke economic and electoral retaliation, jeopardizing Democratic incumbents.
Trump’s actions have suggested this may be a false choice. The 47th president has aggressively targeted these institutions, causing market instability, foreign policy chaos, and economic uncertainty, yet he faces minimal resistance. The anticipated corporate pushback has not materialized; many have chosen compliance over confrontation. This raises critical questions about corporate America’s political alignments and the strategies that Democrats employ.
Traditional leftist theory posits a symbiotic relationship between far-right regimes and corporate power, rooted in mutual economic benefit. Yet, under Trump, many corporations are experiencing financial losses. Despite this, their resistance to Trump is muted. This suggests that factors beyond immediate profit—perhaps ideological alignment or fear of retribution—influence C-suite acquiescence.
The implications are profound. If Trump can strong-arm these institutions without significant consequence, a progressive Democratic administration could exert similar pressure—firmly and lawfully—to achieve policy goals.
Even base Democrats, including many moderates, are furious with their leadership not just for its failure to force a government shutdown over DOGE and budget negotiations but because they feel, in a larger sense, deceived.
The frustration is understandable and justified. For decades, Democrats were told that confronting entrenched corporate power too forcefully would provoke donor flight, destabilize markets, and invite political defeat. But now they watch Trump destabilize the economy, berate institutions, undermine global stability—and encounter, remarkably, little institutional resistance. The promised backlash if Democrats pushed too hard never materializes, even as Trump tramples through the executive suites.
This moment is forcing a reappraisal. If Trump can use power this aggressively, should progressives do the same—only in service of justice and democracy rather than autocracy and self-enrichment? The conciliatory path of Democrats from Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden may have reflected prudence, but it increasingly looks like misjudgment.
If powerful institutions can be bent for evil, they may bend toward the public good. The leaders of corporate America may want to reflect carefully. The next generation of Democrats may come prepared not just to persuade but to compel.
