Can Universities Escape Trump's Wrath Through Appeasement?

In my essay earlier this week (which was republished in The Chronicle of Higher Education) about the illegal $400 million funding cutoff to Columbia, I offered some speculation about why Columbia appears to be attempting to appease rather than sue the Trump administration. In describing Columbia’s approach as "appeasement," I intended to invoke the specter of Neville Chamberlain, but some readers might wonder why I think appeasement won't work in this instance. After all, Trump is vulnerable to manipulative flattery.

Indeed, world leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer clearly understand the need to play to Trump's ego. Even leaders at odds with Trump play to his ego a bit. Thus, in his otherwise strongly worded response to Trump's tariffs, Justin Trudeau began by saying to "Donald" that he is "a smart guy," which, despite Trump's ability to recognize a cartoon elephant as such, is pretty clearly not something Trudeau (who actually is a smart guy) believes.

Exhibit A for the use of flattery this week is Ukraine. After Trump and JD Vance ambushed Volodymyr Zelensky a couple of weeks ago, Zelensky and his government went on a charm offensive, effusively thanking Trump for everything they could think to name. This calculated self-abasement paid dividends when Zelensky's team came out of its Saudi Arabia meeting with Marco Rubio with a resumption of military aid (at least for now) and a ceasefire plan that puts considerable pressure on Vladimir Putin to accept the terms to which Ukraine agreed, lest Putin lose Trump's favor.

Exhibit B--a negative example--is the announcement on Tuesday that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was "pausing" $30 million in funding for the University of Maine in obvious retaliation for the statement of Maine Governor Janet Mills that her state would comply with the law and not necessarily with Trump's executive order announcing one of the administration's anti-trans policies. That confrontation, which famously included Mills saying "see you in court," occurred on February 21. The very next day, a Saturday no less, the USDA sent a letter to Mills and the chancellor of the University of Maine system announcing a Title IX investigation. Tuesday's funding cutoff is unlawful for the same reason that the Columbia cutoff is: the government followed none of the procedural requirements of the federal statute governing cutoffs for federally funded institutions that violate civil rights.

Would the University of Maine be better off if Governor Mills had taken a more conciliatory tone? Could she have done for Maine what Zelensky seems to have done for Ukraine by kissing the ring?

I doubt it.

Trump wants a "deal" to end the war in Ukraine. The ceasefire deal that Ukraine has accepted is indeterminate with respect to final arrangements, but it is clear that Ukraine has already sacrificed a whole lot in agreeing to Trump's terms: any permanent deal will almost certainly involve Ukraine ceding territory to Russia and will block Ukrainian membership in NATO. So kissing up to Trump did not exactly get Ukraine what it really wants. At most, it undid some of the damage from the White House meeting.

Meanwhile, it's hard to see what cards Maine has to play that could get it a better "deal" on transgender athletes. Trump doesn't really care about the issue but he wants to keep it in the news because he thinks (alas, probably correctly) that the current public wave of transphobia he whipped up translates into support for him.

To see why flattering Trump wouldn't likely help universities, it's useful to try to imagine what Governor Mills might have done differently. Here's how the actual exchange went:

Trump: Are you not going to comply with it [i.e., the executive order barring transgender female athletes from competing in girls' or women's sports]?

Mills: I'm complying with state and federal laws.

Trump: Well, we are the federal law. Well, you better do it. You better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't. And by the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal, although I did very well there, your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports. So you better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding.

Mills: See you in court.

Trump: Good. I'll see you in court.

How might Mills have handled matters differently? She probably could have gotten Trump to back off by simply capitulating to his demand that Maine's educational institutions bar transgender female athletes from girls' and women's sports. That would have been appeasement, to be sure, but under such an approach, Trump would have essentially dictatorial power.

Was there a way for Mills to stroke Trump's ego without giving in to his demands? Perhaps, but it's hard to see how that would go. Maybe like this:

Trump: Are you not going to comply with it?

Mills: Sir, you are so very wise, powerful, and compassionate. And also, I might add, incredibly sexy.

Trump: Yes, that's true. (Aide whispers something in his ear.) Wait. What was your answer?

Mills: The State of Maine is at your service, sir. Of course we will do what it takes to achieve our common goal of ensuring fair and equitable participation in girls and women's sports. Also, did I mention that you are by far the sexiest president in the history of our great country?

Trump: Okay, good. It's a beautiful thing when the states and the federal government work together. It's a thing of . . . uhm  . . . beauty and . . . (aide whispers in his ear) . . . and feudalism (aide whispers again) . . . fed-ER-a-lism. Nobody has ever done fedERalism the way we have.

Satirical? Sure. But honestly, I tried to imagine a less ridiculous version of the conversation and I couldn't come up with anything in which Mills could stick by her substantive position but avoid the possibility of a funding cutoff by stroking Trump's ego.

Indeed, here Columbia is an instructive example. Just days after Trump's inauguration, Columbia hired a Trumpworld lobbyist to tell the administration that the university was ready and willing to play ball. Fat lot of good that did.

To be clear, none of this is to say that universities or other institutions in Trump's crosshairs are better off deliberately antagonizing him. But a duck-and-cover strategy is bad for all universities. Those universities that do not simply obey in advance will be picked off one at a time.

Well before Trump, conservatives didn't like universities, which they see as liberal bastions. But as Trump has reshaped the Republican Party, the attack on higher education has taken on a more important role in the right-wing agenda. Authoritarian regimes aim to disable reliable sources of facts and critiques of their policies. Targets invariably include independent news organizations, lawyers, and universities. Ducking and covering might buy any one target a few days, weeks, or months while the authoritarian regime focuses on more prominent perceived enemies. But in the end it's a losing strategy for everyone.