Well, well, well. If it isn’t The New York Times Editorial Board arriving late to the “Let’s all be brave and stand up to Trump” party, breathlessly clutching a laminated playbook like it’s a sacred relic passed down by the Founding Fathers. The op-ed is titled A Playbook for Standing Up to President Trump, which already sounds like something a frustrated soccer coach would scream while flailing a clipboard during halftime of a losing game.
So, what is this alleged “playbook” they speak of? Oh, it’s a medley of obvious statements, righteous indignation, and a stern warning to institutions that — surprise! — caving to an authoritarian is not a winning long-term strategy. Groundbreaking.
Let’s take a snark-filled stroll through this masterclass in liberal handwringing and institutional anxiety, shall we?
“The Illusion of Invincibility” – Also Known As: That Thing You Fed for Eight Years
The op-ed starts strong, with the bold claim that Trump’s power is an illusion. Oh, honey. If it’s an illusion, it’s the David Copperfield of illusions. We’re talking “Statue of Liberty disappeared on live TV” levels of illusion here. Except, in this case, the Statue of Liberty didn’t disappear — just her meaning, along with due process, institutional courage, and apparently, spines.
Trump’s influence isn’t some mysterious magic trick. It’s the result of eight years of unchecked escalations, a spineless GOP, and a Democratic Party that still thinks “When they go low, we go high” is a viable battle strategy and not a suicide pact.
But sure, NYT, tell us more about how institutions shouldn’t feel powerless. You know, the same institutions you’ve reported on folding like cheap beach chairs every time Trump sends out a rage tweet at 2 a.m.
A Reminder of Trump’s Legal Defeats — AKA, The Participation Trophy Section
Ah yes, let’s revisit that time the courts blocked Trump from adding a citizenship question to the census. And the time they made him stop separating families at the border. See? See?! It’s all going to be fine, guys. Because courts sometimes — sometimes — do their jobs.
Meanwhile, we’re on the fifth constitutional crisis since brunch, and law firms are bending over backwards to prove their loyalty like they’re trying to get a rose on a fascist-themed season of The Bachelor.
“We’re not powerless,” insists the editorial board, while clutching legal victories from 2018 like relics of a bygone era. That’s like saying your house isn’t burning down because you once put out a candle successfully.
Law Firms: A Cautionary Tale in Cowardice
Let’s talk about Paul, Weiss — the legal firm that looked Trump in the eye, saw their own reflection, and decided the safest thing to do was to become a doormat. They offered up $40 million in pro bono work to “Trump-friendly causes.” (What even is a “Trump-friendly cause”? Finding new synonyms for “witch hunt”?) Essentially, Paul, Weiss turned “lawyering” into a customer loyalty program for autocrats.
Then you’ve got Milbank, Skadden, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher, who preemptively surrendered — because if history has taught us anything, it’s that the best way to avoid authoritarianism is compliance. Nothing says legal integrity like voluntarily becoming a client-side concierge service for strongmen.
These firms made deals without even securing anything binding in return. This wasn’t a negotiation — it was a clearance sale on dignity. “Buy one soul, get two compromises free.”
Columbia University: Ivy League Kneecaps Itself
Let’s not forget Columbia, which looked at the constitutional crisis and thought, “You know what this needs? Some appeasement.” After Trump threatened to yank federal funding, Columbia rolled over faster than a golden retriever at a bacon festival.
And what did they get? Not even funding. Just permission to negotiate. That’s right, they gave up their principles and got a vague maybe in return. Columbia has officially entered the chat as the Neville Chamberlain of academia.
Meanwhile, Princeton’s president — bless him — warns that once you concede once, it’s hard not to do it again. That’s true, especially if you’ve decided that playing fetch for an authoritarian is just a new form of tenure-track.
“Due Process is Cool Again” – The NYT Discovers the Rule of Law
After spending several paragraphs in performative anguish, the NYT finally gets to the meat of the playbook: due process. Groundbreaking stuff here. Apparently, the idea is that if Trump accuses you of something, maybe — just maybe — we should all follow the rules.
Whoa. Revolutionary. Someone alert the Founders.
They even acknowledge that some of Trump’s complaints might be valid (gasp!) — like, say, antisemitism on college campuses — but rather than doing the hard legal work, Trump just bulldozes institutions with a Sharpie executive order and a Fox News segment.
But hey, don’t worry, kids. If you just follow the procedures, everything will be fine. Because this Supreme Court — yes, that Supreme Court — will totally protect the system. Just ignore the flaming dumpster full of precedents rolling past Roe v. Wade’s ashes.
The Heroes of the Story: Three Law Firms Who Actually Sued
To their credit, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale decided that being an actual law firm was better than becoming Trump’s PR agency. They filed lawsuits, they won temporary restraining orders, and they even got Paul Clement — a dyed-in-the-wool conservative — to write a searing brief.
See? There are adults in the room.
But you know what else there is? Silence. Deafening silence from the other firms, who apparently are too busy calculating how many “Make America Great Again” retweets it takes to tank their stock price.
And what does the NYT suggest? That solidarity is the final chapter in this playbook. Solidarity! Yes! Because it worked so well when ICE was targeting immigrant communities and the best corporate America could offer was a rainbow logo during Pride Month.
“Fight or Surrender — Both Cost Something”
Here’s the kicker: the editorial finally admits that standing up to Trump isn’t cost-free. Gasp. Paul, Weiss partners made $6.6 million in 2023 — surely they can spare a few million in moral courage, right? Apparently not.
But now, students at top law schools are saying they won’t even interview at firms like Skadden anymore. You love to see it. Turns out the next generation of lawyers would prefer not to work at firms that fold faster than a lawn chair in a tornado.
It’s nice to see that some young people still believe in things like ethics and reputational risk. Now if only the managing partners could stop checking Mar-a-Lago’s weather forecast long enough to grow a backbone.
Corporate America: The Real Swing Vote in Democracy
According to the Times, corporate executives should totally send quiet signals that they won’t abandon firms under fire. Yes, because private whispering campaigns are just so effective against authoritarian overreach.
Here’s a thought: maybe don’t whisper. Maybe yell. Maybe put your damn name on a statement for once instead of hiding behind “industry sources familiar with the matter.”
Because — and this may be hard to hear — capitalism actually depends on the rule of law. If Trump gets to toss it out like yesterday’s Big Mac wrapper, it won’t just be Columbia students crying. It’ll be your shareholders. And then your board. And then you.
The Inspiring Conclusion, Sponsored by Hope and Delusion
In true op-ed fashion, the piece ends with a rousing appeal to courage. “Standing up to the abuse of power is inherently difficult,” they write. No sh*t, Sherlock. That’s why it’s called courage and not, say, “casual brunch.”
They talk about inspiration and legacy and looking back proudly. And yeah, that’s all great. But there’s a big difference between “inspiring” and “inert.”
The crisis won’t end on its own. It never does. The editorial board knows this. But if they think a couple of court filings and a group hug from the ABA is going to stop Trump from rewriting the Constitution on a napkin, they’re still playing checkers while he’s halfway through Monopoly with all the hotels on Boardwalk.
Final Thoughts from the Peanut Gallery
Look, it’s nice that the NYT finally acknowledged that surrendering to Trump is a losing strategy. But if this is your playbook — lawsuits, public shaming, “quiet signals,” and moral encouragement — you might want to call it what it really is: A Playbook for Belated Resistance, Mildly Worded and Likely to Be Ignored.
Because here’s the truth they dance around for 2,000 words: Trump doesn’t care about tradition, decorum, or institutional legitimacy. He cares about winning, humiliating enemies, and dominating every room he’s in. And if you show up with a stack of legal briefs and a heart full of good intentions, he’ll eat you alive and then sue you for defamation.
So yes, institutions should stand up. They should sue, resist, and refuse to comply. But they should also grow a pair, drop the performative wokeness, and start treating this like the existential threat it is — not a semester-long civics seminar.
Because you don’t stop a bully with a “framework.” You stop him with a fight.
Congratulations, New York Times. You’ve finally realized Trump is playing chess while everyone else is still staring at a Jenga tower and wondering why it keeps collapsing. Welcome to the resistance. Try not to trip over your own press credentials on the way in.
