Workers Voice Opposition as Companies Comply with Trump's Demands

In a bold stance against the Trump administration's pressure on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, John Morris, a former tech strategist at Accenture, walked away from a decade's worth of work. His decision, detailed on LinkedIn, risked harming his career, but Morris felt compelled to speak out against the administration's tactics.

"They're using this as a symbolic way to make large corporations bend their knee and demonstrate we're not going to be a problem," Morris explained in an interview. "That, to me, is fundamentally unacceptable."

Morris is part of a growing group of professionals who, in their dismay at their employers' accommodation of Trump's orders, have resigned in protest. Going public with one's resignation isn't easy, Morris acknowledged, but staying quiet comes with its own costs.

The actions of workers like Morris have escalated the pressure on law firms, private companies, universities, and other entities targeted by Trump's demands. These organizations face an unpalatable choice: either comply - effectively submitting to Trump's power to dictate their actions - or resist, potentially leading to lost research funds, security clearances, and the wrath of the president's supporters.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom made headlines when they agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services for Trump-backed causes and announced plans to retire most of their DEI programs. This deal, struck after Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison reached an agreement with the White House, sparked outrage among some employees, leading to resignations.

Skadden's decision "opened the floodgates" for further Big Law deals, according to Brenna Frey, a former lawyer at the firm who quit after the deal was announced. "It just felt like the firm that I was so proud to work for had, in one day, said, 'Actually, that's not who we are at all,'" Frey explained.

Big Law titans, including Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, have also inked deals with the administration, with the total value of pro bono work extracted by Trump now nearing $1 billion.

Protests against these deals have not been limited to the legal sector. Jacqui Pittman, an early career attorney who worked at the largest revenue-generating law firm in the world, resigned in protest after her firm agreed to work with Trump. Like many who have resigned in protest, Pittman spoke out on LinkedIn to highlight her frustration.

"A lot of people who work in law firms are risk-averse," she said. "I thought that hopefully by putting my name out there, people could see that others were feeling frustrated, and that there were other options."

Critics argue that Trump's tactic of threatening private entities is a means of extending his power. Among his major targets have been universities, which he has long perceived as politically adversarial and whose funding he has threatened to cut if they do not adjust their approach to anti-Israel protests.

Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, opined, "When people want more power, this is what they do. It's really not about how to teach molecular biology or how to run a hospital in north Manhattan. They want people to bend the knee and to say, 'Yes, leader, you do know how to run things.'"

In recent days, the administration has moved against several universities, including Harvard and Princeton, after threatening Columbia with the loss of $400 million in research funds. These schools have either complied with the administration's demands or faced the loss of millions in federal funding.

Former President Barack Obama has urged organizations to stand up to Trump even if it means taking a financial hit. "If you're a law firm being threatened, you might have to say, 'OK, we will lose some business because we're going to stand for a principle,'" Obama said. "In the case of universities, 'You may have to figure out, "Are we in fact doing things right? Have we in fact violated our own values, our own code, violated the law in some fashion?" If not, and you're just being intimidated, well, you should be able to say, "That's why we've got this big endowment."'

Leaders of institutions that have struck deals with Trump often portray the dynamics differently. They argue that these agreements merely solidify efforts they would have pursued anyway and that defying Trump for the sake of it would hurt innocent people, including those conducting crucial research and those in need of legal assistance.

However, critics argue that these agreements represent a significant departure from traditional pro bono practices. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York) asserts, "They are sharply changing what they are doing. Instead of the pro bono work they were doing - what they thought they should do - it's the pro bono work the president wants them to do."

Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump former Republican,observes that Trump's tactic of singling out one institution at a time has made it hard for them to fight back. "It's like what lions do when they're hunting and they separate a gazelle from the herd to make it easier to pick off," Longwell said. "It feels like all of our institutions now are like the Republican Party of 2017 - slowly capitulating."

Trump's ability to mobilize his followers against his opponents creates an air of danger surrounding his threats, Longwell added. "There is an aura of menace that hangs over all of it that is different from normal protests."

From the moment Trump took office, private companies began adjusting their strategies to accommodate him. ABC News paid $15 million in a defamation suit filed by Trump, despite the high bar for proving defamation against a public official. Meta settled its own legal dispute with Trump by agreeing to pay $25 million. Other groups, like the Associated Press, have chosen to challenge the administration's directives through legal action.

As long as some institutions accommodate Trump's demands, individual employees are likely to take issue with those decisions. Some may leave quietly to join more ideologically aligned organizations, while others may remain in more precarious situations, having fewer financial or professional options. The choice for many, Ozan Aliev, a former employee of a contractor targeted by Trump, sums up poignantly: "Stay and fight the good fight, or find a new fight elsewhere."

The political actions of President Trump have extended to the realm of business, with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and other Big Law firms potentially sacrificing their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to secure lucrative deals with the administration.
The general-news landscape in Seattle was abuzz with the resignation of Jacqui Pittman, an attorney who left her position at the largest revenue-generating law firm in the world in protest against her employer's agreement to work with Trump.
The housing market in various cities remains affected by political decisions, as universities, including Harvard and Princeton, have either complied with Trump's demands or faced the loss of millions in federal funding.
In the transportation sector, the decisions of companies like Skadden and other Big Law firms to collaborate with the Trump administration have been met with criticism from professionals, who view it as a symbolic capitulation that fundamentally goes against their values.