A Free Speech Shakedown—Trump’s Approach to American Civil Society 

“I will make him an offer he can’t refuse.” So says Vito Corleone played by Marlon Banda, in Godfather. But it can also serve as a motto for Donald Trump’s approach to US civil society. The self -proclaimed transaction artist used the power of the federal government as never before to get rid of his critics. And while doing so, he discovered critical vulnerability in some of the most important institutions of our democratic policy. Federal support was crucial for the growth of US civil society, but in Trump’s hands, the support became a lever for extra -boiler control.

Civil society is non -governmental institutions through which people come together to promote mutual interests – it is necessary for bright democracy. When a person examines the world, almost every country has a constitution that looks as good on paper as ours. But in many cases, these constitutions exist but On paper. One of the key differences is the power of civil society. Where this is reliably, as traditionally in the US, civil society plays an important role in defense of rights and checking power. Realizing that Fremers developed the first amendment to protect civil society from the government control. This guarantees the right to disagree from the views of the federal government, to associate with the like -minded people to promote their own views, to report on the violations of the government, to protest on the streets and to submit legal actions that seek the grievances. And thanks to not a small part of the federal support for civil society through grants, subsidies, tax benefits and the like, the US almost certainly has the same powerful civil society sector as any nation. It should be a source of national pride; This is the central power of America.

But the most federal support that promoted civil society can be used for further unconstitutional purposes. Signs around us. In recent days, the universities of Colombia and Brown have agreed to pay millions of dollars for resolving disputes in the Trump administration. Colombia pays $ 221 million, and brown $ 50 million – despite the lack of any reliable evidence that either an institution involved in any legal violations, especially since any violations that guarantee even the share of these sums. Trump administration poorly accuses them (and many other colleges) with insufficient reactions to anti -Semitism on their campuses, but most of what it shows is just a terrible criticism of the slaughter of Israel and the hunger of tens of thousands of gases. Even if some of these protests have overcome anti -Semitism, universities will only be legally responding if they are “intentionally indifferent” to specific acts of discrimination, an extremely complicated standard – and one that is not even supported anyway. Both universities also agreed to ban transgender women from women’s sports, a rule that requires no law. What caused these agreements was not a law but compulsion. Both universities get billions of federal financing, most of it for research, and they are worried that if they do not “pay”, they will lose these funds. And now Trump reportedly demanded that UCLA one billion dollars, again, allegedly reacted to anti -Semitism, but almost certainly managed Animus Trump to the Democratic politicians of California than any actual violations of the law. “

Trump’s targeting of law firms was equally unreasonable and unconstitutional – as every judge acted in four cases where the firms disputed his actions in court. Trump’s executive orders understood that he acted against the firms because he did not approve some of the lawsuits they started, and some lawyers they hired. He ordered the federal government not to do business with firms, refuse his lawyers and refuse them in access to federal buildings, all forms of official support. But whom the firms are hiring and what they sue, not just the Trump’s case; They make up the implementation of the constitutionally protected rights to compensate complaints and contact others. But nine corporate rights firms concluded transactions with Trump, collectively promising nearly $ 1 billion in support of Pro Bono for Trump’s support; Again, Trump’s “means” had no legal powers to demand. The firms were settled not because Trump had a law on his side, but because access to federal buildings and registration was important for their work, and they feared the loss of private customers when they fought. Many of their business customers need approval from the Federal Government’s regulatory bodies for their enterprises, from approving drugs to merge permit. Here, again, Trump was able to extort hundreds of millions of dollars at large institutions of civil society not because the law provided for it, but because of fear that he would participate in further retribution if the goals were not paid.

The same with the CBS, which in recent months has taken a few steps to make Trump, again not because it was legally obliged to do so, but because it was afraid of illegal retaliation Trump in connection with the request of his mother’s Paramount Company to merge with Skydance. He paid 16 million dollars for the resolution of a completely unreasonable trial filed by Trump vs. 60 minutes To edit an interview with 2020 with the then presidential candidate Kamala Harris. He fired Stephen Colbert, an open critic Trump. And Skydance has promised to give “objective news”, appoint an ombudos that control this key, and finish its Dei initiatives. Here, again, the law not only did not allow Trump administration to demand anything of this. However, CBS, Paramount and Skydance were subjected to the President’s will because of the concern that he abuses his federal regulation and denied merger.

These actions reveal critical vulnerability in the constitutional armor of civil society. If institutions are heavily dependent on federal support – be it federal dollars for research or federal approval of business operations – an unethical president may threaten support if he does not receive his way. Trump did exactly that, once again. And it works. He compromised the independence of civil society – or perhaps more precisely, used his dependence.

As a constitutional issue, Trump could not legally punish universities for too liberal, law firms for submitting lawsuits that dispute the government, or press -commerce points for the president’s criticism. According to a well -created doctrine of the first amendment, it also cannot use state financing, or state benefits from any kind, including access to state buildings or federal approval of business initiatives to summon the recipient’s speech, as it did with universities, law firms and CBS. But, like the leader of the organized crime, Trump exploits the dependence of others to get what the law does not allow and really forbid. Where the institutions are ready to risk by challenging his actions in court, they can win – as four law firms and Harvard have already shown, and California governor Gawin Newsm promised. But it can be difficult to prove the full sphere of revenge, and the costs for the fight can be astronomical. The preservation of civil society and the termination of the Trump racket will require not only bold institutions, but also the courts that want to block unconstitutional use of federal support to achieve illegal goals. The political opposition will be required.