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.
Collective Self-Defense
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 of 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 leading companies have large federal contracts or depend on favorable treatment from government regulators.
But their continued silence carries an escalating price. We are already seeing warning signs that the U.S. 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 CEO Jamie Dimon and Walmart 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 administration’s 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 also society more broadly.
These efforts need to transcend the 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 concerns 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 on 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.
