The Collapse of Courage
How legal institutions and universities are failing our democracy
At a time when the Constitution itself is under siege, we look to our most trusted institutions — our courts, our law firms, and our universities — to defend the core values of the American experiment. But in the face of economic pressure and political intimidation from the increasingly autocratic Trump administration, too many of these institutions have chosen silence, complicity, or calculated neutrality. The consequences can be catastrophic.
A nation in constitutional crisis
America stands at a critical juncture. The presidency of Donald J. Trump, particularly following his re-election in 2024, has laid bare the fragility of the constitutional safeguards that have long underpinned our democracy. Through a campaign of systematic disinformation, institutional sabotage, and personal intimidation, the current administration has launched a sustained assault on the very idea of representative government.
We have seen open contempt for the separation of powers. Career civil servants, inspectors general, and judges have been purged or intimidated. Laws are openly flouted, Congressional oversight is stonewalled, and regulatory agencies have been hollowed out or repurposed into instruments of political loyalty.
And yet, amid this constitutional emergency, many of the institutions best equipped to push back — private law firms, elite universities, and the legal profession — have instead chosen the path of accommodation, hedging their bets in the hope of weathering the storm.
This is not merely institutional timidity. It is a moral failure.
The legal profession’s moment of truth
America’s private legal establishment wields immense influence. The largest firms — many with billion-dollar revenues and global footprints — serve as gatekeepers to the rule of law. Their alumni fill judicial benches, draft legislation, and shape legal norms. Their alumni also populate the Justice Department and the federal judiciary. In theory, they are uniquely positioned to serve as a bulwark against authoritarianism.
And yet when asked to stand for principle, too many have opted for profit.
Paul, Weiss: the price of silence
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, one of the most powerful law firms in the country, recently agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono services aligned with the Trump administration’s goals after facing pressure over its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Rather than resist the coercion, the firm folded — abandoning core values in exchange for continued access and influence.
Skadden and Simpson Thacher: complicity in comfort
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreed to $100 million in similar pro bono services, a move internally criticized as aiding and abetting the administration’s anti-democratic legal maneuvers. At Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, a resignation letter from associate Siunik Moradian went viral after the firm pledged approximately $125 million in pro bono assistance to the administration. “This is how democracy dies,” he wrote. “Not with tanks in the streets, but with lawyers signing deals.”
The shame of the universities
Universities, especially elite private institutions, have long described themselves as sanctuaries of free inquiry and defenders of democratic values. They are where future leaders are shaped. Law schools in particular teach not just legal doctrine but the importance of legal ethics, constitutional literacy, and civic responsibility.
And yet, just as with the legal profession, the response from academia has been dangerously muted.
Harvard stands alone
Harvard University became a rare exception, rejecting a deal that would have preserved $9 billion in federal research and student aid in exchange for third-party audits of “viewpoint diversity” and a restructured hiring pipeline monitored by administration-appointed observers. President Alan Garber issued a blistering statement defending the independence of the institution. “We do not bargain with bullies,” he wrote. “Not with this government, not with any.”
Penn and Columbia under siege
Elsewhere, however, the story is different. Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania have come under fire for failing to adequately protect academic freedom amid accusations — some legitimate, others politically motivated — of antisemitism and faculty bias. Rather than standing up for the core principle of free expression, both universities have largely adopted a posture of risk-avoidant compliance with federal threats to withdraw funding.
The result? A chilling effect that pervades the academic culture — one that rewards caution over courage, consensus over critical thought, and careerism over constitutionalism.
The consequences of capitulation
This abandonment of institutional courage has profound implications for American democracy.
First, it normalizes authoritarian behavior. When law firms lend their prestige to legally dubious acts — or simply refuse to speak out against them — they signal that such acts are within the bounds of legitimate governance. When universities shrink from defending truth and academic freedom, they signal that intellectual independence is negotiable.
Second, it accelerates the erosion of the rule of law. Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires active maintenance by civic institutions and the professionals within them. If those with legal and academic power treat constitutional norms as optional, they cease to function as restraints on executive overreach.
Third, it leaves the public without reliable allies in the fight to preserve democracy. When citizens see that even the most privileged and powerful institutions are unwilling to take a stand, it breeds cynicism, disengagement, and despair. And that, in turn, creates fertile ground for further authoritarian consolidation.
What can be done
The moment demands more than institutional hand-wringing. It requires moral clarity and concrete action.
Law firms must recommit themselves to the ethical obligations of the legal profession — not just to clients, but to the Constitution. That means refusing to serve as enablers of autocracy, defending those who resist unlawful government actions, and restoring the idea of the lawyer as a public servant.
Universities must rediscover their role as incubators of dissent and guardians of civic integrity. That means standing by faculty and students who challenge the political status quo, protecting open inquiry, and resisting efforts to politicize academic governance.
Bar associations, accrediting bodies, and alumni networks must also speak out. The silence of professional and academic associations is itself a form of complicity.
Finally, the public must hold these institutions accountable. Consumers of legal services, students and parents, donors and trustees — all have leverage. They must use it to demand better.
A dire warning
Authoritarianism rarely arrives overnight. It advances in stages, through small concessions, professional rationalizations, and institutional silences. Each retreat by a powerful institution becomes a precedent for the next.
America has not yet fallen. But the foundations are visibly cracking.
Now is the time for law firms, universities, and the people within them to choose sides. Not between political parties, but between the rule of law and the rule of men. Between accountability and impunity. Between democracy and something far darker.
If they fail to choose, history will remember their cowardice. And democracy may not get a second chance.
