Is Conceding Defeat the American Way?

A Saturday Prompt

Gen. Mark Milley, the retiring chair of the Joint Chiefs, at his farewell tribute in 2023. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

In the oft-repeated first chapter of On Tyranny, author Timothy Snyder warns us not to obey in advance. “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” the Yale historian explained. And those who give in to a repressive government “without being asked” are “teaching power what it can do.” Snyder calls this “anticipatory obedience,” describes it as “a political tragedy,” and gives the example of Nazi Germany after the elections of 1932 when a still-forming Adolf Hitler government benefited from enough people volunteering their obedience and hastening regime change.

The parade of billionaires offering millions to fund and attend Donald Trump’s inauguration and media company owners changing their editorial policies and restricting journalists’ freedoms—Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos and Meta owner Mark Zuckerberg offer particularly vivid examples of both—illustrated early on that there would be cowards and enemies of democracy on board with Trump’s despotic rule. Their chilling actions served as a disappointing warning that there would be plenty among the rich and powerful who would help accelerate full regime change.

This week we saw two large institutions take a sobering next step by choosing to work with Trump rather than fight for the principles that a free, democratic society depends on. Both did not simply obey in advance, but responded to Trump’s hostile threats and attacks by conceding defeat and bending to his will.

One is the major law firm of Paul, Weiss, which was faced with a Trump order threatening to suspend security clearances of its lawyers and cancel its federal contracts. After a meeting with Trump, the firm’s leadership agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to support the regime’s interests—to support “the full spectrum of viewpoints of our society,” according to the White House—and renege on its commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion.

In order to convince Trump to rescind the order, the firm also “acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.” This was posted by Trump on Truth Social. Get it? The firm agreed to denounce its own well-respected former colleague and kowtow to Trump’s rejection of democratic principles.

The other is Columbia University which, facing threatened cuts of $400 million, agreed to a series of changes to appease Trump. This included hiring 36 “special officers” who will be allowed to remove protestors or others from campus or arrest them, banning masks on campus that conceal identity, creating a formal definition of antisemitism, and appointing a senior vice provost to monitor the university’s Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department.

As the New York Times described the last concession, this is “a rare federal intervention in an internal process that is typically reserved as a last resort in response to extended periods of dysfunction.” The paper’s reporter, Troy Closson, accurately summarized Columbia’s actions as “a stunning level of deference to the Trump administration from a top private research university.” And anyone who believes that Trump’s real desire is to stem antisemitism, rather than use it as a tool to inflict harm on schools and free speech, has not been paying attention.

The caving by both Paul, Weiss and Columbia have consequences for other law firms and universities. Does anyone imagine that Trump will be satisfied with these concessions and move on? Or do these prove to him that the more he threatens, the more he will get what he wants? (That’s “teaching power what it can do” in Timothy Snyder’s words.) Their individual decisions—however much intended to secure their own survival—have seriously increased the danger for countless others and our society as a whole.

My question this week represents my belief that, in America, we don’t bow down to a despot. Our responsibility is to serve the Constitution—and we fight back when it’s under attack rather than selfishly accept defeat. As Gen. Mark Milley memorably reminded us in his farewell speech in 2023, “We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.”

So what do you think: Is conceding defeat the American way? Perhaps you want to specifically address Paul, Weiss or Columbia and the dangerous precedent they have ignited. Maybe you’d like to consider the larger implications of people and institutions choosing to concede defeat and hasten the regime’s advance. Or perhaps you can offer some uplift with examples of people who are fighting back, be it in street demonstrations or Tesla protests or attending rallies or other more personal responses.

As always, I look forward to reading your observations and the opportunity for our community to learn from each other. Please do be respectful in your remarks. Trolling will not be tolerated.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $50 a year or just $5 a month, if you’re not already. This helps sustain and expand the work of America, America, keeps nearly all the content free for everyone and gives you full access to the comment sections. Building our community has never been more important.