Trump‘s ‘Governing by Shakedown’ Raises Rule of Law Concerns
Washington D.C. – A pattern of coercive tactics employed during Donald Trump’s presidency has sparked a national debate over the boundaries of executive power and the erosion of established legal norms. Critics allege a shift from traditional governance to what they term “governing by shakedown,” where threats of financial or regulatory action are used to compel compliance from individuals,organizations,and even foreign governments.
The Pattern of Coercion
Throughout his time in office, Trump frequently sought to influence outcomes by targeting perceived adversaries. This included pressuring universities, law firms, and international trading partners, often with the implicit or explicit threat of economic repercussions. This approach, observers say, mirrors the tactics of authoritarian leaders and undermines the principle of equal submission of the law.
The former president’s actions extended to demanding that institutions align with his political views. He insisted that universities like Harvard, Columbia, and Brown submit to his “rightwing vision” regarding antisemitism, while simultaneously targeting law firms for hiring decisions or legal challenges he opposed.These actions were frequently enough accompanied by threats to withhold funding or impose crippling financial penalties.
Did You Know? The concept of “governing by shakedown” draws parallels to historical instances of strongman leadership, where power is exercised through intimidation and the manipulation of economic leverage.
Legal Challenges and Court Rulings
Trump’s aggressive tactics have faced numerous legal challenges. Federal district courts have ruled against the administration in at least four cases, finding that attacks on law firms violated their Frist Amendment rights to free speech.Furthermore, the U.S. Court of International Trade determined that Trump’s broad-based tariffs on dozens of countries were unlawful, asserting that Congress had not granted him the authority to impose such sweeping economic measures.(The administration is currently appealing this ruling.)
The legality of cutting off federal funding to universities over alleged failures to address antisemitism has also come under scrutiny. Legal experts contend that the administration did not adhere to established anti-discrimination laws, which require due process and specific procedures before penalizing institutions. Federal law dictates that funding cuts should be targeted at specific programs found to be non-compliant,rather than applied broadly to entire universities or research initiatives.
the Nvidia Deal and Export Restrictions
In a recent growth, Trump reportedly brokered a deal with the semiconductor manufacturer Nvidia, allowing the company to sell advanced AI chips to China only if it agreed to remit 15% of the revenue from those sales to the U.S. Treasury. this demand, though, is widely considered to be of questionable legality, as the constitution prohibits the imposition of taxes on exports.
Pro Tip: Understanding the separation of powers – between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches – is crucial to evaluating the legality of presidential actions and potential overreach.
international Pressure and Trade Disputes
Trump’s ”shakedown” tactics extended beyond domestic targets, impacting international relations. He threatened Brazil with a 50% tariff unless it ceased prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro for alleged attempts to subvert the country’s election results. When Brazil’s current president refused to yield to this pressure,Trump imposed the tariff,a move Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon described as “far outside his legal authority.”
Corporate Compliance and Legal Settlements
Several law firms, including Paul, Weiss, opted to reach settlements with Trump rather than engage in protracted legal battles. Paul, Weiss agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services in exchange for the administration backing down from efforts to restrict the firm’s access to classified data and government contracts. In total, nine law firms have reportedly pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to Trump as part of similar agreements. Some legal scholars argue these deals are effectively coerced and thus unenforceable.
| Institution | Settlement Amount | Nature of Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia University | $221 million | Agreement to combat antisemitism and revise admissions policies. |
| Brown University | $50 million | similar to Columbia, focused on addressing concerns about discrimination. |
| Paul, Weiss (Law Firm) | $40 million (in pro bono services) | Agreement to provide legal representation to Trump. |
Columbia University reached a $221 million settlement with the Trump administration, while Brown University agreed to a $50 million deal. Both institutions pledged to address concerns about antisemitism and revise their admissions policies, while also receiving the unfreezing of previously withheld federal funding.
The Role of Congress and the Supreme Court
Critics argue that congress and the Supreme Court have been largely passive in the face of Trump’s actions. Despite concerns about the legality of his tactics, lawmakers have largely refrained from challenging him, and the Supreme court has been slow to intervene.This inaction, some observers fear, could set a risky precedent for future administrations.
What steps can congress and the judiciary take to restore checks and balances and uphold the rule of law in the face of executive overreach?
The concerns surrounding Trump’s governing style extend beyond legal technicalities. They raise essential questions about the health of American democracy and the importance of safeguarding institutions from political interference.
The debate over executive power and the rule of law is a recurring theme in american history. Throughout the nation’s history, presidents have tested the limits of their authority, and Congress and the courts have often played a crucial role in defining those boundaries. The current situation underscores the importance of these checks and balances in preserving democratic principles.
Frequently Asked questions
- What is “governing by shakedown”? It refers to a governing style characterized by using threats and coercion to achieve political or economic objectives.
- Is it legal for a president to impose tariffs without congressional approval? Generally, no. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce, and tariffs are considered a form of regulation.
- Can a president legally withhold federal funding from universities based on political disagreements? No, not without following established legal procedures and demonstrating a clear violation of federal law.
- What role does the Supreme Court play in addressing these issues? The Supreme Court can review and rule on the legality of presidential actions,providing a crucial check on executive power.
- What are the potential consequences of unchecked executive power? Erosion of democratic norms, weakening of institutions, and increased risk of authoritarianism.
This is a developing story. We encourage you to share this article with your network and join the conversation in the comments below. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates and insightful analysis.
