Since
taking office, the Trump administration has launched an aggressive
assault on the institutions, norms, and values that sustain American
democracy. Attacks on independent media, political retaliation against law firms and charities, demands to control universities, and efforts to punish dissent
have become defining features of this moment. Comparisons to the
authoritarian drift seen in Hungary, Turkey, and elsewhere are apt;
authoritarian leaders often begin by isolating and weakening civil
society. But the Trump administration is underestimating the strength of
American institutions.
We are beginning to see early signs of meaningful resistance.
Charitable foundations, law firms, and universities — pillars of
American society — are beginning to organize, defend themselves, and
stand together against these threats.
Business leaders now face a pivotal choice: Will they join these
civil institutions and mount a collective defense against a government
that not only threatens market stability, investor confidence, and
economic growth but also the fundamental well-being of democracy? Or
will they remain passive as the United States retreats from its
democratic roots? As they consider stepping up, they should look to
civil society for inspiration about how to respond.
Charitable Institutions
Evidence of this emerging civil resistance can be found in the philanthropic sector.
The United States has by far the largest charitable sector in the
world, with 60 percent of global foundation assets held by U.S.
organizations, totaling close to $1 trillion. In April, a group of
charitable organizations released a joint statement
pledging collective action if the government seeks to challenge them or
the non-governmental organizations they support. More than 670
organizations have now signed that statement.
John Palfrey, president of the McArthur Foundation, whose assets totaled $8.7 billion
in 2023, has been one of the leaders of this effort, motivated by what
he calls “full frontal attacks on the fundamental system of the rule of
law in America.” MacArthur has also announced that it will step up its giving in response to the Trump “crisis.”
The Legal Community
The legal community is also starting to mobilize. Over 500 law firms
recently signed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing government
retaliation against Perkins Coie for representing clients unpopular with
this administration, including Hillary Clinton. In March, almost 200
law school deans signed a letter condemning efforts to penalize lawyers based on whom they represent. Federal judges – including J Harvie Wilkinson III, a federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan – have also spoken out about these attacks on the American legal system.
Colleges and Universities
Higher education leaders, too, have made clear that they will not
quietly submit to government control. On April 14, Harvard’s President Alan Garber
sent just the right message when he rejected the Trump administration’s
demands, emphasizing that, “no government – regardless of which party
is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, who
they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can
pursue.” Harvard continues to challenge the administration’s efforts to
interfere with its educational mission, including most recently by
filing a lawsuit challenging the administration’s effort to bar foreign
students from attending.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance is pursuing a “mutual defense pact”
in which member institutions would provide legal representation,
countersuits, strategic communications, amicus briefs, expert testimony,
legislative advocacy and research in defense of any school that becomes
a target of the administration. Faculty bodies at at least 10 of the 18 Big Ten Schools have endorsed this proposal. Since late April, the leaders of more than 650 colleges and universities signed a statement—issued through the American Association of Colleges and Universities—denouncing
the Trump administration for its “unprecedented government overreach
and political interference” in higher education.
These actions from civil society matter not just because they uphold
abstract democratic principles, but because they model a practical,
urgent strategy in this new environment: collective self-defense.
When autocratic governments move to consolidate power, they often
target institutions one by one, hoping to isolate them and make an
example. The only effective response is solidarity — standing together
to make retaliation costly and ineffective.
What Business Leaders Need to Do
Business leaders now need to step up as well. To date most have
stayed silent or in some cases publicly aligned themselves with the
administration’s agenda in hopes of winning short-term financial gains,
some examples include
Energy Transfer and EQT Corporation. Their reticence to stick their
heads above the parapet is not surprising. Many lead companies have
large federal contracts or with a dependency on favorable treatment from
government regulators.
But their continued silence carries an escalating price. We are
already seeing warning signs that the US business environment is growing
less stable and less secure. Tariffs and other politically driven
market interventions are disrupting supply chains, shrinking margins,
and introducing volatility that undermines long-term investment and threatens millions of workers.
The transactional nature of the administration’s approach and its increasing corruption
are eroding consumer confidence, and making the United States a less
attractive destination for foreign investors. The hollowing out of
government agencies, for example, those charged with ensuring airline
safety, regulating food and drugs, and overseeing the integrity of the
financial markets are weakening democratic guardrails that have
contributed to a stable business environment. As these and other
democratic norms erode further, businesses are likely to face growing
legal uncertainty, arbitrary enforcement, and heightened political risk.
Though a few leaders of big U.S. corporations have stepped up, they
have done so on issues that directly affect business such as tariffs. A
number of business leaders, like JP Morgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon and
Walmart’s CEO Douglas McMillon, have challenged the administration’s
tariff policies. In May, Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway went a
step further warning more broadly that “trade should not be a weapon.”
A few large companies have challenged the administration’s hardline attack on diversity and inclusion policies, including Costco, Apple and Starbucks. They have made it clear that pursuit of diversity policies is in their company’s best interests.
More subtly but also importantly large companies are offering
implicit support to law firms that have challenged the admiration
demands for fealty by directing business to them. In April, for example,
Microsoft
transferred a significant portion of its legal business from Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett, a firm that yielded to the administration’s
demands, to another firm, Jenner and Block, that has successfully
challenged the administration’s demands in court.
Business leaders will find strength in numbers, and in taking
collective action especially as they consider voicing concerns about the
administration’s broader assault on the rule of law, and democratic
norms—issues that affect business but society more broadly.
These efforts need to transcend our partisan divide, involving
business leaders with widely divergent political views. This must not be
seen as a partisan issue but instead needs to be framed as an essential
effort to safeguard the conditions that have made American markets the
strongest and most dynamic in the world: free expression, stable
governance, and a predictable rule of law.
Initially these expressions of concern can be expressed privately, by
groups of business leaders within business associations such as the
Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce. A next step would be to
engage with business leaders now in senior positions in the Trump
administration and with Republican leaders in the Congress. These types
of private engagements often can be the most effective.
At some point, and for those ready to engage more publicly, a group
of corporate leaders should contemplate making public statements that
stress the value businesses place on democratic norms – fidelity to the
constitution, separation of powers, press freedom, independence of the
judiciary and the rule of law.
On a parallel track, companies should offer legal, financial, and
strategic support to organizations under attack. For example, they can
encourage their in-house legal offices to engage in pro bono legal
representation of individuals subject to deportation proceedings or
non-profit organizations that are under attack. They also can support
law firms handling their commercial work to double down in similar pro
bono commitments. Companies also can provide financial support to
organizations engaged in civic education and efforts to build democratic
resilience. In sum, businesses should make concerted efforts to promote
policies and organizations that strengthen, rather than weaken,
democratic institutions and the rule of law.
The early signs of collective resistance from the nonprofit sector,
legal community, and higher education show that coordinated action can
make a difference. Business leaders must now follow that example, not
just to protect the economic future of their own enterprises but to help
preserve and defend our democracy.
FEATURED
IMAGE: Stock market statistics are displayed as traders work on the
floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at the opening bell on April
21, 2025, in New York City.
Wall Street stocks opened lower amid lingering uncertainty over
President Trump's trade policy. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty
Images)