The Cowardice of Power: When Institutions Fail to Lead

The recent capitulation by Big Law firms and the Supreme Court in the face of Trump’s second administration is a stark reminder that even the most powerful institutions can crumble under pressure. The deal cut by Brad Karp, representing Paul Weiss, and Donald Trump himself was little more than five vague points on an unsigned piece of paper – a far cry from the robust defense one would expect from leading lawyers.

This incident is not isolated; it’s part of a broader pattern of institutional failure in the face of authoritarianism. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts’ leadership, has repeatedly demonstrated a reluctance to challenge Trump’s actions, often relying on tenuous justifications for their decisions. A notable example is the court’s recent refusal to intervene in the Justice Department’s defiance of federal judges.

These institutions may be trying to preserve their own power and prestige by avoiding confrontation with a president willing to disregard the law. However, this approach ultimately undermines the rule of law itself. When institutions fail to lead, they embolden those who would exploit loopholes and push boundaries.

Jacob Weisberg’s book, Profiles in Cowardice: A Study of Collaboration in the Trump Era, sheds light on these failures of leadership. He examines the capitulation of Paul Weiss, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to intervene, and Mitch McConnell’s legacy of remaking the judiciary. Weisberg argues that these institutions have been complicit in Trump’s authoritarian agenda, often prioritizing their own interests over the principles they were meant to uphold.

The consequences of this cowardice are far-reaching. When institutions fail to lead, a power vacuum is created that inevitably attracts those who would seek to exploit it. In this case, it has emboldened a president with little regard for the rule of law and a desire to consolidate power.

Resistance is emerging – Harvard’s refusal to make a deal with Trump being a notable example. However, these efforts must be sustained if they are to have any real impact. It will require a concerted effort from institutions and individuals alike to reclaim their leadership roles and stand up against authoritarianism.

The failure of Big Law firms and the Supreme Court in the face of Trump’s second administration serves as a stark reminder that even the most powerful institutions can fall victim to cowardice under pressure. It is time for these institutions to re-examine their priorities and rediscover the leadership qualities that have made them great in the first place.

As the midterms unfold, it will be interesting to see how Joint Chiefs chairman Mark Milley responds if tested by Trump’s administration. Will he continue down the path of capitulation, or will he take a stand against authoritarianism? The answer to this question may hold the key to understanding whether institutions can reclaim their leadership roles and restore the rule of law.

The failure of Big Law firms and the Supreme Court in the face of Trump’s second administration is not just a reflection on these institutions – it’s also a warning sign for our democracy as a whole. If we fail to stand up against authoritarianism now, we risk emboldening those who would seek to exploit power at the expense of the rule of law.