Several leading American universities and prominent law firms recently found themselves entangled in a scenario reminiscent of the classic prisoner’s dilemma, triggered by President Trump’s tactics.
The administration’s campaign targeted law firms representing or employing political opponents, as well as universities accused of promoting so-called "woke" policies or tolerating antisemitism, placing these institutions in a difficult position.
Those who opted to reach early agreements with the White House hoped to avoid the harshest repercussions but risked compromising their autonomy. Conversely, resisting the administration’s demands risked intensified sanctions, especially if others acquiesced.
Columbia University and several major law firms initially agreed to the administration’s terms. However, recent developments have altered the dynamics of this dilemma.
In a significant move last month, Harvard University became the first institution to publicly reject the administration’s demands, deeming them unlawful. Following this lead, over 400 university leaders issued a joint statement condemning what they described as unprecedented government overreach and political interference threatening American higher education.
At the same time, numerous large law firms initiated lawsuits to block executive orders targeting them, securing temporary injunctions. Many others voiced support for these legal challenges. Notably, Microsoft terminated its relationship with a law firm that had settled with the White House and instead hired one of the dissenting firms to represent it in a prominent case.
