Appeasing President Donald Trump Won’t Work
It’s common for organizations to coach staff on de-escalating conflict. Psychiatrists and teachers, clergy and cops are all trained to defuse volatile situations before they spin out of control. The idea is not to make matters worse by adding tension to an already stressful state of affairs and to buy time to calmly assess the situation, establish some connection with those involved, and offer solutions that don’t involve the use of force.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]As a college president myself, I understand the value of de-escalation. Indeed, colleges and universities tend to be pretty good at this. Rather than fight with angry protesters on campus, a staff member these days is more likely to ask them questions to start a dialogue. Ideally, those considering themselves adversaries come to see each other as having some fundamental things in common. I was surprised last year during campus protests around the war in Gaza when a mediator suggested that those negotiating begin by acknowledging their shared affection for the university. It turned out to be a trust building moment that calmed things down.
It’s hard to find anyone who has a bad word to say about de-escalation. The problem is that de-escalation isn’t always possible and right now some powerful institutions seem to view only one other path as possible: appeasement, a method of engagement far less likely to elicit praise and far more likely to cause damage. And they’re jumping to it quickly.
The paradigmatic case of appeasement, of course, is England’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s giving Germany a free hand to seize parts of Czechoslovakia in order to achieve what the Prime Minister called “peace for our time.” To “appease” means to satisfy someone’s demands and pacify that person by giving them what they say they want. But this approach typically fails—whether it’s giving in to a toddler’s demand for ice cream or a dictator’s demand for territory—when we are sure that the person making the demand will be back for more.
Appeasement is in bad odor because it doesn’t work. Stories of de-escalation recount how tense situations can be dealt with rationally once the temperature is brought down. Stories of appeasement remind us that some people may never be satisfied—no matter how much one gives into them.
When the Trump Administration threatened earlier this month to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding from Columbia University unless the university agreed to a list of demands, Columbia had to figure out a response. The reason given by the Administration was that the university “may have failed to protect Jewish students,” though there was no indication of a serious investigation into this alleged failure. Nor were established procedures for adjudicating such a failure followed; the government didn’t even deign to give the appearance of doing so.
But the loss of government funding would have had profound ramifications, which is why, I presume, the university gave in to the Trump Administration’s demands, promising, among other things, to hire dozens of police officers with the power to arrest students and to appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee Middle Eastern studies.
In a letter to the Columbia community, interim president Katrina Armstrong attempted to dress its decision in the rhetoric of mission, values and continuous improvement—stating that “For Columbia and great universities like it, nothing could be more sacrosanct than academic freedom and free expression.” But the university’s statement incited fierce criticism from defenders of academic freedom while getting only a tepid nod from the Trump Administration. Indeed, the Administration’s demands have been described as merely “a precondition for formal negotiations”; the White House may call for other “immediate and long-term structural reforms.” Peace at Columbia may be quite short lived.
Columbia was faced with a very difficult situation, to be sure, but the speed at which it capitulated was striking. It could have relied on its donors and its endowments to push back against the government’s demands. As author Charlie Eaton recently noted, $15 billion is enough to at least try to fight a president’s overreach. Many constitutional scholars (of various political leanings) thought Columbia had a strong case. Maintaining endowment strength is not unimportant, but spending power without academic freedom also buys you moral bankruptcy.
It’s not only academia that has been put in a challenging position. On March 14, President Trump issued executive orders retaliating against three firms he believes challenge his priorities by denying them access to any federal buildings or security clearances and terminating their federal contracts. Of the three originally targeted firms, Covington & Burling did not respond to the order and Perkins Coie resisted and won a partial victory against the order. But Paul Weiss ultimately caved. Others now seem poised to do so.
When Paul Weiss’ managing partner Brad Karp went to the Oval Office, he may have hoped for de-escalation. He is an experienced litigator, a person well-versed in Washington politics, and someone who likely thought he might find some common ground with people in the White House—perhaps through a shared affection for the constitution. Instead, he left having promised to donate $40 million in pro bono legal work for the President’s causes. In doing so, he went beyond appeasement to outright collaboration.
De-escalation works when there is a reciprocal relationship among the parties involved. People begin to recognize, often just by slowing down a little, that the intensity of the conflict serves neither side. But when at least one party is willing to wreck things, attempts to de-escalate fail. In the case of Columbia, the White House has shown no concern for if studies on diabetes, cancer, and strokes are just halted. However, the university does care and is desperate to protect the research enterprise central to its mission. That desperation means the White House has the power to demand more.
Paul Weiss, meanwhile, chose to placate the President in hopes it would benefit its business, arguing it did not abandon its principles in the process. Chamberlain would have understood.
Although the President rescinded the order against the firm, there is no guarantee he won’t command more if he’s displeased with a case or client they take on. Soon after the agreement, in fact, he talked derisively about law firms now wanting to “make deals” with him. On social media Trump crowed that Karp had admitted to wrongdoing by a previous partner and agreed to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies at the firm—even though the agreement Karp shared did not mention the former partner or DEI.
Here too, giving in was not the only choice. It would not have been shocking to see a major law firm depending on the rule of law—fighting the Administration in the courts. As with Columbia, many legal experts think litigation would have had a significant prospect of success. But the short-term costs were more important than the constitutional principles.
The partners at Paul Weiss didn’t serve their long-term interests, and neither did the acting president of Columbia. Leaders today must shine a bright light on abuses of power and challenge them through political channels and the courts. We must underscore that our freedoms are worth defending. Many decision makers are afraid, and so they choose a path of appeasement with a White House bent on revenge and aggrandizing power, hoping it will work. It won’t.