UJ
—
Former President Donald Trump is leveraging the federal government’s resources to intimidate or neutralize potential opposition: the legal community, educational institutions, significant cultural entities, the media, the judiciary, the Democratic Party, Congress, and independent governmental oversight.
The extensive range of actions taken by Trump and his supporters within the government against his perceived adversaries within the initial two months of his return to office is remarkable—highlighting both the president’s eagerness to push the boundaries of his authority and the difficulties faced by those opposing him in adequately responding or resisting his influence.
Utilizing executive orders, his platform for public address, and allies in control of the Justice Department and various Cabinet agencies, Trump’s maneuvers are undermining institutions that are foundational to America’s civic society.
Within legal circles, at least two law firms that Trump has beef with have opted to negotiate with him to avoid his threats. In the realm of education, institutions such as Columbia University are acquiescing to sweeping demands that threaten principles of academic freedom that have existed for centuries.
“This administration’s open, multi-layered assault on national institutions is unprecedented,” stated Timothy Naftali, a UJ presidential historian and senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “While institutions can be rebuilt, political culture can be tainted for generations.”
Traditional sources of opposition to a president have been silenced, if not entirely eliminated. Independent media organizations like the Associated Press find themselves excluded from presidential access, while government-funded media outlets face dismantling and threats of funding cuts.
The legislative branch has largely relinquished its constitutional responsibility as a check on the executive. Congressional Republicans have generally surrendered control over federal spending to the Department of Government Efficiency—which has dismantled agencies and programs mandated by Congress. Meanwhile, Democrats have struggled with internal discord over strategies to counter Trump.
Within his administration, Trump has dismissed inspectors general from over a dozen federal agencies, including the head of the Office of Government Ethics.
The primary source of persistent opposition to Trump’s actions exists within the federal judiciary, where judges have consistently intervened to halt or reverse executive actions deemed to exceed legal boundaries. Judges who have blocked Trump’s initiatives have faced backlash from the president and his allies—threats of impeachment or the dismantling of opposing courts—and many district court injunctions may ultimately not withstand scrutiny in a Supreme Court where a third of the justices were appointed by Trump during his first term.
Trump has boasted of his effectiveness thus far. At the White House on Wednesday, he expressed delight in his ability to exert pressure on law firms and colleges, attributing this to the failures of the Biden administration following his loss in 2020, which allowed him to retake power and “achieve things that we could never have done under normal circumstances.”
“You can see what we’re doing with colleges—they’re all complying and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much, we appreciate it,’” Trump remarked.
“No one can believe it—including law firms that have been exceedingly unfavorable, firms that no one would expect—and they’re just saying, ‘Where do I sign, where do I sign?’” he added. “Nobody can believe it. And there’s more to come.”
During the 2024 campaign, Trump leveled attacks against the prosecutors investigating and indicting him. Now that he is in office, he has escalated his actions against law firms that have employed or supported those who scrutinized him.
Trump has enacted executive orders canceling security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and severing federal relationships with lawyers from at least five law firms: one hired by Hillary Clinton in 2016, one retained by special counsel Jack Smith, and three that had previously employed attorneys who investigated him.
This aggressive approach has created divisions within the targeted firms: some are fighting back in court while others are opting to settle with Trump.
Trump’s initial targets included Perkins Coie, the Democratic law firm that has long been in his sights due to its involvement in funding the 2016 Russia dossier, and Covington & Burling, from which the White House revoked security clearances for lawyers who represented former special counsel Jack Smith.
Perkins Coie attempted to resist, promptly filing a lawsuit and obtaining a temporary restraining order from US District Judge Beryl Howell, who issued a critical ruling asserting that the administration has undermined the integrity of the legal system, stating that the president cannot “use the federal government against his political adversaries as seen here.”
Another targeted law firm, New York-based Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, was affected by an executive order partly due to its former partner, Mark Pomerantz, who previously investigated Trump in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.
Recently, the firm reached a settlement with the administration, agreeing to provide the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services to “support the administration’s initiatives” in exchange for rescinding the executive order.
Brad Karp, chairman of Paul Weiss, expressed in a letter to employees that the executive order presented an “unprecedented threat” that could have “devastated our firm.” The firm chose to settle, he indicated, because engaging in legal battles was a futile endeavor.
Sensing vulnerability, Trump has broadened his target list. On Tuesday, he issued another executive order aimed at Jenner & Block, where Andrew Weissmann, a key investigator in the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe, was once a partner. On Thursday, he added Wilmer Hale to this list, the former law firm of ex-special counsel Robert Mueller. Both firms filed lawsuits on Friday to contest Trump’s orders.
Another potential target, Skadden Arps, proactively settled with Trump last Friday ahead of a likely executive order, committing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono work.
Trump also issued a memo last week to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, instructing her to investigate the conduct of law firms that the administration considers to have filed “frivolous” lawsuits against the United States, dating back to his first term.
“American law firms have historically represented clients opposing the US government without fear of retribution or sanctions—until now,” remarked Cari Brunelle, founder of a legal advisory firm collaborating with several prominent American law firms. “This has generated immense anxiety.”
The Trump administration has translated the president’s frustration over pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations into policies resulting in sweeping changes at Columbia University, identified as the hub of last year’s protests.
This month, the Trump administration revoked $400 million in federal grants to Columbia over alleged “inaction regarding ongoing harassment of Jewish students.” Three agencies communicated with Columbia demanding substantial policy modifications to restore access to funding.
The mandates included enforcing stricter protest regulations, banning masks, enacting a plan to hold student organizations accountable, empowering law enforcement, and scrutinizing its Middle East studies offerings and admissions process.
“This represents, I believe, the most serious infringement on academic freedom and university independence,” stated Lee Bollinger, a First Amendment expert and Columbia’s president for over twenty years. (Naftali noted that Nixon had intended to suppress universities amid anti-war protests, but his aides intervened.)
Last week, Columbia acquiesced to the Trump administration’s demands. The federal government responded positively while indicating that this was merely “the first step towards mending its relationship with the government.”
Columbia is far from the only institution facing scrutiny; the Department of Education is now investigating 60 colleges and universities for alleged “antisemitic harassment and discrimination.”
The administration’s immigration authorities are targeting several foreign-born students and scholars at Columbia and other prestigious universities for deportation due to their purported involvement in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
The Trump administration is also urging universities to align with its positions on diversity initiatives and the participation of transgender women in women’s sports.
Perhaps one of the most significant threats to American universities is the Trump administration’s intention to drastically cut the grant funding the institutions depend on, which university officials say could have dire consequences for research in the country.
Aside from universities, Trump this week directed his administration to review and threaten funding for the Smithsonian Institution, pressuring federal museums to “eliminate improper ideologies” from their displays.
Banning and Investigating the Press
Trump consistently criticized reporters covering him as “fake news” during his first term, and his rhetoric has contributed to the erosion of public trust in the media.
Now, Trump’s White House and various government entities are targeting perceived adversaries in the media more directly.
The White House barred the Associated Press from the Oval Office, the White House press pool, and other events due to its discontent with the news organization’s language. Trump specifically targeted the AP for its continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico,” despite his renaming it “Gulf of America.”
The AP has since filed a lawsuit against the White House seeking restored access.
Last month, the White House took further measures by controlling the news outlets permitted access to the president in the press pool, substituting pro-Trump outlets in place of the AP and others.
The Federal Communications Commission has initiated investigations into several media outlets—including CBS’s “60 Minutes” for its interview with Trump’s Democratic rival Kamala Harris last year. The FCC has requested CBS provide transcripts and raw footage of the interview. (The transcript, published by the network, indicated that CBS engaged in standard editing and not the alleged nefarious activity claimed by Trump, as noted by UJ’s Brian Stelter.)
“This represents a retaliatory action by the government against broadcasters whose content or reporting is perceived as unfavorable,” stated Anna Gomez, one of the two Democrats on the FCC.
Additionally, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr swiftly reversed late decisions made by his predecessor from the Biden era by reviving complaints lodged against local CBS, ABC, and NBC stations—but not against a Fox station. Carr has been open about treating the FCC as a branch of the Trump administration, boasting about “DEI” investigations into NBC’s owner Comcast and ABC’s owner Disney.
The FCC has also launched inquiries into NPR and PBS regarding the sponsorship practices of their respective member stations and into individual public radio stations for their coverage of immigration raids.
In Congress, Republicans have proposed stripping federal funding from NPR and PBS—Trump indicated recently that he would “love to enact that.” Moreover, the Trump administration has already diminished the operations of Voice of America, the government-run media outlet that broadcasts globally.
Media outlets are currently wrestling with how best to react. ABC News reached a settlement in a defamation lawsuit from Trump by committing $15 million to a presidential foundation. Last month, Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post—whose other enterprises receive government contracts—asserted control over the direction of the newspaper’s opinion section, leading to resignations and staff unrest.
Paramount, the parent company of CBS, consented to a merger with Skydance last year requiring government approval. Reports indicate that Paramount is contemplating settling a lawsuit from Trump concerning CBS’s “60 Minutes” interview with Harris.
Republicans in both chambers of Congress have largely stood back, acquiescing to how Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE have commandeered federal spending, raising minimal objections to the cancellation of funds allocated by Congress and dismantling of agencies established by legislative statutes.
The process of essentially dismantling the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Education occurred with little resistance from GOP lawmakers, despite legal requirements for Congressional involvement.
“The president can achieve a lot through the use of executive authority, and I have no issue with him utilizing it forcefully,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole commented to UJ.
In light of rising pressure from constituents, some lawmakers have privately expressed concern regarding the party’s rhetoric towards federal employees, establishing backchannels with agency leaders, while others have leveraged their connections within the administration to restore certain federal programs affecting their districts. In private meetings, they have urged Musk to pursue budget cuts through Congress.
Nevertheless, the recent government funding process underscored just how far Republicans are willing to cede their prerogatives concerning fiscal authority to the Trump administration. The bill that was passed to maintain government operations did not reflect the cuts enacted by the administration, signifying that Congress was no longer controlling spending decisions.
When allowed to speak anonymously, numerous Republicans are more candid about the way the Trump administration is effectively dismantling institutional norms.
“If this were a Democratic administration inducing the same behaviors, there would be fierce backlash,” one Republican lawmaker stated to UJ. “Thus, we need to tread carefully regarding the precedent they’re establishing.”
Democrats engaged in these discussions assert that Trump’s spending maneuvers violate legal stipulations.
“I firmly believe this administration is acting unlawfully and that Congress is responsible for holding them accountable,” declared Sen. Patty Murray, a leading Democratic appropriator in the Senate, to UJ. She has teamed with GOP Sen. Susan Collins to protest Trump for not designating $3 billion in emergency funds approved by Congress as part of the spending bill.
However, any Democratic aspirations for leveraging the funding process to impede Musk’s plans evaporated once Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decided to support the funding bill instead of opting to shut down the government in an attempt to gain concessions from the administration.
Democrats currently find themselves completely out of power in Washington, still attributing blame regarding their defeat to Trump while striving to outline a successful counter-message. They are already noticing early indications that Trump’s Justice Department, alongside congressional Republicans, might exploit their power to undermine Democrats’ political operations.
Ed Martin, acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, has advocated for probes into congressional Democrats, reportedly aiming to present evidence to a grand jury concerning comments Schumer made about Supreme Court justices in 2020.
Democrats are also preparing to contest the rules governing elections following a new executive order issued this week that aims to significantly transform how US elections are conducted. This executive order has been denounced by Democrats and voting rights advocates as a blatant power grab.
Trump’s order, which faces potential legal challenges, seeks to leverage the withholding of federal funds and other threats to necessitate documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration—critics argue this could disenfranchise millions of citizens—and demands that states reject mail-in ballots received post-Election Day. It also seeks to enable federal officials to compare state voter rolls against federal databases searching for unlawful voters, a task election experts warn is likely to yield numerous false positives.
Musk and congressional Republicans have similarly focused on Democrats’ leading fundraising platform, ActBlue. Senior Republicans in Congress are urging Trump’s Treasury Department to share with legislators findings related to suspicious financial transactions involving ActBlue and advocating for investigations by the Treasury and the FBI.
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy is pressuring the FCC to reconsider a decision made last year that allowed billionaire Democratic benefactor George Soros to acquire the largest shareholding in Audacy and its network of over 200 radio stations.
The strategy employed by Trump and his allies in Congress to target progressive organizations and law firms affiliated with Democrats amounts to “utilizing governmental resources to endeavor to permanently dismantle political opposition, which resembles authoritarianism,” noted an individual knowledgeable about Democratic fundraising dynamics.
Mike Davis, a former legal adviser to Trump and vocal advocate for political retribution, recently warned in a Florida event that there will be “severe legal, political, and financial repercussions” for many Democrats within the next four years. When contacted by UJ, Davis refrained from providing specifics about what lies ahead but indicated that Trump’s initial actions have made it clear he intends to exact suffering on those he believes have wronged him.
“We will not turn the other cheek,” Davis emphasized. “This is not the Trump 45 administration. They’ve learned from past errors. Four years in office, four years in the wilderness, four years in legal battles.”
Michael Berry, a conservatively aligned lawyer serving as chief counsel for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, has recently acknowledged an “internal tension” regarding whether to “respond to aggression with aggression.” Sharing a platform with Davis, Berry concluded, “It’s crucial that we maintain the moral high ground.”
Davis disagreed. “Two wrongs don’t create a right,” he argued. “However, it does even the playing field.”
Trump’s attempts to extend the boundaries of his executive power have frequently been challenged by the judiciary, representing a critical component of the governmental system.
More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against the administration’s executive actions in the first two months of Trump’s presidency. These cases encompass various aspects of Trump’s assertions of power—ranging from the dismissal of federal employees and budget cuts to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and Trump’s executive order prohibiting birthright citizenship.
In numerous instances, judges have intervened to temporarily restrain the Trump administration from executing certain actions, allowing time for judicial review. Ultimately, much of Trump’s inclination to mold US institutions to his preference may ascend to the Supreme Court, where his lawyers remain optimistic about a favorable outcome in their executive power arguments.
Yet, many of the judges who have impeded Trump’s initiatives find themselves subjected to both professional and personal attacks from the president and his allies on social media.
Certain Trump supporters in Congress are advocating for the impeachment of judges who challenge his policies, despite the fact that such measures lack any likelihood of success. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently suggested that Congress should contemplate the elimination of district courts entirely, while there are various Republican proposals aimed at limiting nationwide injunctions.
US District Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal court in Washington, DC, has become a prominent target for Trump. The president labeled Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” on social media and called for his impeachment, eliciting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Trump’s grievance arises from Boasberg’s ruling that halted the administration’s application of a 1798 law concerning deportations. Boasberg has since demanded the administration clarify how it did not violate his court order when it neglected to turn two flights to El Salvador back earlier this month.
The potential infringement of Boasberg’s order has incited concerns that the White House may blatantly disregard his—as well as other—court directives without facing backlash.
“There’s been considerable discourse regarding a constitutional crisis over the past several weeks. That term is being tossed around freely,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt articulated during a hearing Boasberg chaired concerning the deportations. “I believe we are nearing a tipping point.”
UJ’s Katelyn Polantz, Tierney Sneed, Devan Cole, Ray Sanchez, and Brian Stelter contributed to this report.
