Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
"The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution," Chemerinsky wrote. "As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers."
In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a "straightforward and non-controversial" statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined.
"A lot of people didn't respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn't feel comfortable," Chemerinsky said.
The response showed that many in academia and the legal field "are being chilled from speaking out" for fear of becoming the president's next target, Chemerinsky said.
"If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?" he asked. "It often won't be anyone without law firms."
In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump's intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond.
Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump's focus on them.
There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won't be next to draw the president's ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues.
And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late.
Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating.
"I feel like one of the things that's really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests," said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described "unhappy Democrat" who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla's chief executive.
In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a "fighter" or a "folder." She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders "to be braver."
When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was "surprised just how quickly" the Trump administration had "created a climate of fear."
"I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they're intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they're causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they're causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they're worried about losing government contracts," said Schiff, who managed Trump's first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump's incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president.
But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said.
Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students," including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school's New York campus.
Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration's demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone "while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity."
The university did not respond to a request for comment.
Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients.
Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump's opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm's lawyers as necessary for the firm's financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump's order in court "would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration."
At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon "illegal DEI" initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients.
Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment.
Read more: Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's law firm latest to strike deal with Trump
Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students.
Others have denounced his claims and the deals he's struck as deeply dangerous.
Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution.
In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being "at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration's bullying tactics." In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm's deal with Trump "emboldened him to further undermine our democracy."
After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional.
"To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA," the firm said in a statement.
The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it.
"It's really about whether the government can control what you say," AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was "doubling down" on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past.
Chad Dunn, the project's legal director, said it is "at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution," and that "this is a unique moment" where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks.
"In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can't worry about the consequences," he said.
At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates.
California is home to many.
Read more: California vs. Trump: What it's like to be the attorneys on the front lines
Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently.
"The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we've seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win," one recent message said.
"So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn't backing down, and neither should you," it continued. "Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on."
Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren't alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. "It's kind of our place to hold this position and this platform."
Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme "Queer Joy Is Resistance" for this summer's events.
Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a "gut punch" — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more.
"Showing up at Pride this year," she said, "is an act of resistance."
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump celebrates Colbert's demise Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.' 'It is a very sad day for CBS that they are getting out of the late-night race,' Andy Cohen, host of Bravo's 'Watch What Happens Live," told The Associated Press. 'I mean, they are turning off the lights after the news.' Colbert, if he wanted to continue past next May, would likely be able to find a streaming service willing to pay him, Wieser said. But the future of late-night comedy on the entertainment networks is genuinely at risk. Trump, in fact, may outlast his fiercest comic critics. Jon Stewart, once a weeknight fixture, works one night a week at 'The Daily Show' for Paramount's Comedy Central, a network that seldom produces much original programming any more. ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, who was chided on social media by Trump on Friday — 'I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next' — has a contract that also runs out next year. Kimmel, 57, openly wondered in a Variety interview before signing his latest three-year contract extension how long he wanted to do it. He's hosted his show since 2003. 'I have moments where I go, I cannot do this anymore,' Kimmel told Variety in 2022. 'And I have moments where I go, what am I gonna do with my life if I'm not doing this anymore?' It's a very complicated thing ... I'm not going to do this forever.' Colbert, Kimmel and Stewart were all nominated for Emmy awards this week. ___ AP journalist Liam McEwan in Los Angeles contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and David Bauder, The Associated Press

Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Hegseth tells lawmakers about plan to detain immigrants at military bases
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says bases in Indiana and New Jersey can house detained immigrants without affecting military readiness — a step toward potentially detaining thousands of people on bases on U.S. soil. Hegseth notified members of Congress from both states this week of the proposal to temporarily house detained immigrants at Camp Atterbury in Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. President Trump has moved to aggressively detain and deport people in the country illegally, a push that has swept up large numbers of immigrants, including many with no prior criminal records, and forced federal authorities to find places to house them. Hegseth said the presence of the detainees would not negatively affect the bases' operations or training. Officials have not said when detainees could begin arriving at the facilities or if other military bases are under consideration. Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump's border chief, Tom Homan, said there are about 60,000 beds available for detained immigrants and the goal is to expand to 100,000. 'We're looking for any available bed space we can get that meets the detention standards we're accustomed to,' Homan said Friday. 'The faster we get the beds, the more people we can take off the street.' Democratic lawmakers from both states and civil rights advocates condemned the idea of housing immigrants at the bases, questioning the effect on military resources and the justification for so many detentions. 'Using our country's military to detain and hold undocumented immigrants jeopardizes military preparedness and paves the way for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in every New Jersey community,' New Jersey's Democratic delegation said in a statement. Democratic Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana said his questions about detainee conditions have gone unanswered by the Trump administration. He cited concerns raised about conditions at other facilities and said, 'The fact that ICE has detained so many individuals that they now need to expand detention space in Indiana is disturbing.' Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said in a statement that housing immigrants in military facilities sets a dangerous precedent 'and is contrary to the values embedded in our Constitution.' Both of the bases identified by Hegseth have housed Afghan or Ukrainian refugees in recent years. During Trump's first administration, he authorized the use of military bases to detain immigrant children — including Army installations at Ft. Bliss and Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas. In 2014, President Obama temporarily relied on military bases to detain immigrant children while ramping up privately operated family detention centers to hold many of the tens of thousands of Central American families who crossed the border. Klepper and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Christine Fernando and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.


Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for PBS and NPR after Republicans strip funding?
Ken Burns has made more than 30 documentaries and won multiple Emmys. But without funding from public television, his educational programming such as 'The Civil War' and 'Baseball' might never have existed, he told 'PBS News Hour' in an interview Thursday. Even today, the acclaimed filmmaker whose works — including his upcoming project 'The American Revolution' — are broadcast on PBS, said his films get around 20% of their budgets from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the body Congress recently voted to defund. Projects that receive a higher percentage of their funding through public media 'just won't be able to be made,' Burns said. 'And so there'll be less representation by all the different kinds of filmmakers. People coming up will have an impossible time getting started.' The U.S. Senate this week passed the Trump administration's proposal to claw back $9 billion in federal funding previously allocated for foreign aid and public broadcasting, and the House of Representatives approved the package after midnight Friday, sending it to President Trump's desk. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which administers the funds for NPR radio stations and PBS TV affiliates, is on track to lose $1.1 billion that had previously been budgeted for the next two years. The impact of those cuts will be deeply felt across both NPR and PBS, leaders of both organizations told The Times. Layoffs and reduced programming are expected, and the blows will disproportionately strike smaller markets that rely more heavily on federal funding. 'This is going to hit hardest in the places that need it the most,' said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Stations in smaller markets are staffed significantly less than stations in larger cities, often because of the disparity in funding. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting acted as 'the great equalizer,' Kahn said, padding the budgets of smaller stations so they could continue operating. 'It's just going to be increasingly lonely out there as these voices, who were of the community and generally very well trusted, are going to disappear,' Kahn said. 'Because within a year, you're not going to be able to hear these things on the radio anymore in a lot of places.' The cuts fulfill a longtime dream of conservatives and libertarians, who bristle at the notion of public funds supporting media organizations, especially ones they view as left-leaning. Republicans have for decades called for cuts to public broadcasting because of the perceived liberal slant of its programming. Trump has called NPR and PBS government-funded 'left-wing propaganda.' But several prominent voices in media and politics were quick to call attention to the harm the cuts will have, especially on communities where the local stations rely heavily on federal funding. 'A PBS station is really like the public library. It's one of those important institutions that may be the only place where people have access to local news,' Burns said. 'There's a kind of sense of local accountability, and as news becomes nationalized and even internationalized, there's a loss there.' PBS President Paula Kerger expressed similar concerns. 'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,' Kerger said in a statement Thursday. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of two Republicans to vote against the package, said she strongly opposes the cuts to public media in a statement after the vote. She referenced a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in Alaska this week that triggered a tsunami warning as an example of the public service stations provide. 'My colleagues are targeting NPR but will wind up hurting — and, over time, closing down — local radio stations that provide essential news, alerts and educational programming in Alaska and across the country.' Public media outlets in Southern California's urban areas, which can turn to wealthy locals for donations, are less dependent on federal funding than stations in smaller markets. But they will still feel an immediate loss. Washington, D.C.-based NPR has two major affiliates serving the Los Angeles area: LAist, or KPCC-FM (89.3), and KCRW-FM (89.9). LAist, based in Pasadena, was set to receive $1.7 million, about 4% of its annual budget. Alejandra Santamaria, president and chief executive of LAist, said the money is equivalent to 13 journalist positions at the local news operation. KCRW in Santa Monica was expecting $264,000 from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting. PBS SoCal, which operates member stations KOCE and KCET in Orange and Los Angeles counties, respectively, is facing a loss of $4.3 million in federal funding, according to Andy Russell, president and chief executive of the stations. Connie Leyva, executive director of KVCR Public Media in San Bernardino, which operates PBS and NPR affiliates, said earlier this week that the Senate action will mean losing $540,000, about 6% of its operating budget. Thus, she has to consider cutting five positions on an already lean staff. Kahn, the USC professor who is also the publisher and editor of Crosstown L.A., a nonprofit newsroom focused on local reporting and data journalism, said the cuts could have unintended consequences for Trump's own voters. 'The irony, of course, is that these are areas that generally support Trump with high margins, and they're are also areas that have the greatest allegiance to their local public radio station,' he said.