Summary of "Is There a Smart Way to Cede Power to Donald Trump?" The Opinions, The New York Times Opinion | Released August 5, 2025

Introduction

In the episode titled "Is There a Smart Way to Cede Power to Donald Trump?" hosted by David Leonhart, editorial director of New York Times Opinion, the discussion centers around the controversial agreements that several elite universities have entered into with the Trump administration. Joined by colleagues Emily Bazelon and Binyamin Applebaum, Leonhart delves into the complexities of these settlements, their implications for academic freedom, affirmative action, and the broader battle over higher education in the United States.

Context: Protests and Settlements

The conversation begins with Emily Bazelon providing background on the surge of protests following the onset of the war in Gaza on October 7th. [01:49] She explains how pro-Palestinian demonstrations, particularly at Columbia University, escalated tensions, leading to significant conflicts on campuses. These protests became a catalyst for the Trump administration's actions against certain universities, accusing them of fostering antisemitism and disrupting national policies.

Emily notes, "The Trump administration has weaponized concerns about antisemitism to target elite universities, using it as a pretext to impose settlements that go beyond addressing legitimate issues." [04:44]

Nature of the Deals

Binyamin Applebaum outlines the specifics of the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown, and Penn:

• Columbia University: A $200 million payment over three years, policy alterations, and monitoring commitments.
• Brown University: A $50 million payment designated for workforce development.
• University of Pennsylvania: A narrower agreement focusing on transgender participation in athletics.

[04:50] Applebaum emphasizes that these deals are leveraged by the administration to secure concessions in exchange for restoring and permitting future research funding.

Legal Implications

David Leonhart draws parallels between these university settlements and previous actions taken by Donald Trump against law firms, particularly referencing the folding of firms like Paul Weiss under threat. He queries the legality of the administration's tactics, asserting, "They've bypassed established legal processes and imposed demands that make the universities' operations untenable." [06:29]

Applebaum responds by differentiating universities from independent law firms, noting the deep financial and operational ties between elite universities and the federal government. He states, "Universities like Columbia and Harvard are not just private institutions; they are integral parts of the national research infrastructure, making them vulnerable to government coercion." [09:57]

Emily Bazelon adds that the administration's leverage includes threats to tax-exempt status and visas of international students, creating an environment where universities feel compelled to settle despite the potential infringement on academic freedom. [08:50]

Affirmative Action and Data Release

The discussion transitions to the implications of the settlements on affirmative action. Leonhart raises concerns about the mandatory release of admissions and hiring data, which could erode existing affirmative action practices.

Emily Bazelon expresses apprehension regarding "the public release of admissions data, especially related to race and ethnicity, which could lead to a chilling effect on policies that promote diversity and address historical injustices." [19:39]

She further critiques the settlement's provisions that restrict universities from considering essays about diversity if used as proxies for race, questioning their alignment with Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action. [22:04]

Leonhart counters by acknowledging the conservative argument for greater transparency while warning that "blunt statistics may obscure the nuanced challenges faced by underrepresented students, ultimately making admissions less fair." [20:44]

Future Implications and Ongoing Struggles

Binyamin Applebaum emphasizes that the Trump administration's actions represent an ongoing effort to reshape higher education, illustrating that the current settlements are just the beginning of a broader campaign. He warns, "The administration's aggressive policies signal a sustained attack on the independence and purpose of elite universities." [23:57]

Emily Bazelon underscores the critical role of universities in defending democracy, likening their position to that of bulwarks against authoritarianism. She argues, "If we fail to uphold legal standards and support academic independence, we risk undermining the very foundations of democratic society." [17:54]

Conclusion

David Leonhart wraps up the discussion by highlighting that the only viable solution to halt the administration's encroachments is a change in the presidency. He remarks, "The lesson here isn't that Columbia is misbehaving. The lesson is that Trump is misbehaving, and the only way to address it is to have a different president." [25:35]

Emily Bazelon concurs, emphasizing the importance of legal victories and policy reforms to protect academic institutions from governmental overreach. [26:05]

The episode concludes with Leonhart acknowledging the gravity of the situation and the necessity for continued vigilance to preserve the integrity and independence of higher education in the face of political pressures.

Notable Quotes

• Emily Bazelon: "The weaponization has all been about antisemitism." [04:44]
• Binyamin Applebaum: "Universities like Columbia and Harvard are not just private institutions; they are integral parts of the national research infrastructure." [09:57]
• Emily Bazelon: "These settlements could lead to a chilling effect on policies that promote diversity." [19:39]
• David Leonhart: "The lesson here isn't that Columbia is misbehaving. The lesson is that Trump is misbehaving." [25:35]

This comprehensive discussion sheds light on the intricate power dynamics between elite universities and the Trump administration, exploring the ramifications for academic freedom, affirmative action, and the broader landscape of higher education in America.