David Cole Alleges Trump's "Extortion Racket" Coerces Civil Society Institutions

David Cole, a prominent legal scholar and The Nation's legal affairs correspondent, has published a new analysis alleging that former President Donald Trump is employing an "extortion racket" to pressure and control key American civil society institutions. The article, titled "A Free Speech Shakedown—Trump’s Approach to American Civil Society," argues that Trump leverages federal support and regulatory power to coerce universities, law firms, and media outlets into compliance. According to a tweet from Katrina vandenHeuvel, Cole asserts that "Ending his extortion racket will demand not only courageous institutions—it will take the political opposition of us all.

Cole, who is also the George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University, details instances where institutions have reportedly yielded to Trump's demands. He cites Columbia and Brown universities agreeing to pay significant sums—$221 million and $50 million respectively—to settle disputes with the Trump administration over alleged antisemitism, despite what Cole describes as a lack of credible legal basis. These universities, heavily reliant on federal funding for research, feared losing billions if they did not comply.

The analysis also points to major corporate law firms, some of which reportedly settled with Trump by agreeing to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal assistance for causes favored by the former president. Cole contends that these firms, needing access to federal buildings and security clearances, capitulated despite the unconstitutional nature of Trump's demands. He highlights that judges have consistently ruled against Trump's actions when challenged in court.

Furthermore, Cole's piece examines the case of CBS, which he claims took multiple steps to placate Trump, including settling a lawsuit and making editorial changes, out of concern for federal approval of its parent company Paramount's merger with Skydance. Cole emphasizes that Trump's strategy exploits the financial and regulatory dependencies of these institutions. He concludes that while Trump's actions are legally dubious, the high costs and difficulty of fighting back often compel institutions to settle, underscoring a vulnerability within civil society that requires broad political opposition to counteract.