| 25 mins read
Where is formal opposition to the Trump presidency found?
Last week I wrote a post where I grouped 69 actions taken by the Trump administration since the 20th January inauguration into five broad domains consistent with authoritarian or proto-authoritarian states and charted these on a Venn Diagram. Since then I’ve updated the list to 76 actions and have investigated which actions are associated with any coordinated opposition12. All 76 actions, links to news stories on them, the date they started, and any opposition are listed in this google sheet (worksheet “Actions with links”).
Despite the administration being less than a month old, about half of all the 76 actions are being opposed in some coordinated way, and about a quarter have had legal action taken against them. Some lawsuits have already resulted in temporary or preliminary injunctions (e.g. ending birthright citizenship or ending USAID). There are lot of people and a lot of organisations doing a lot of things.
There are also fascinating patterns, both in who is doing the opposing and the types of actions where there is (and is not) organised opposition. Below I go through the who of opposition, then what sorts of actions are not being opposed, and finally where next.
Who is opposing?
Concentrating just on actions that have some organised opposition, I grouped them into categories based on who was doing the opposing. The chart is also available as a high resolution PDF.
Lawsuits
The central four circles are all lawsuits brought by different types of organisation. What we see immediately is that Democratic-leaning US States, Labour Organisations (such as unions or professional associations) and civil rights organisations have been leading the legal opposition to the administration’s actions. For some actions such as those concerning Musks’s DOGE or ending USAID, many lawsuits by different organisations have been filed.
All three of these categories (States, Labour, Civil Rights) represent organised advocacy for their members going back over two hundred years - indeed for individual States, advocacy goes back to the very founding of America. These organisations are prepared, coordinated, they have build resources over decades and centuries, and they know how to oppose the national government. They do it all the time.
Even more importantly, there is a legal basis for their opposition. This is not an accident. It is precisely because they have advocated for so long - and often at great human cost - that laws are now in place to protect those they represent. Just think of the centuries long fights to enshrine civil rights protections into law (from the abolition of slavery through to extending voting rights through to legislating against discriminatory practices) or protections for workers (from establishing an 8-hour workday, to ending child labour, to the right to form unions, to workplace safety regulations).
The fourth category who have brought lawsuits encompass the Education sector (e.g. University of California Students’ Association’; The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education); large NGOs (e.g. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition; Naitonal Council of Nonprofits); and professional associations (e.g. American Public Health Association; Global Health Council). These types of organisation may not have the long history of opposition and advocacy of e.g states rights, but they are coordinated, well-resourced and are set up for advocacy. They also have a clear and defined set of people or groups that they represent, allowing them to focus quickly on specific actions that affect those groups.
International opposition
The actions that Trump has taken globally are mostly threats (e.g. to annex Canada, Greenland or Gaza, EU technology regulation), sanctions (the ICC, South Africa), withdrawal from international bodies (WHO, Paris Climate Agreement), plans for Ukraine/Russia and European security more generally (see JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference), and threatening or imposing tariffs. There are no legal remedies for threats and the concrete actions such as tariffs or withdrawing from international bodies are within the US’s right to action (as is the case for any country).
However, there has still been international response to some of these actions. Canada, Mexico, China and the EU either plan to increase, or have increased, tariffs on US exports. The EU, China and the BRICS alliance of countries have all affirmed support for South Africa; seventy-nine countries formally declared their support for the International Criminal Court; the EU has vowed to go ahead with its technology regulation processes. The US stance on Ukraine/Russia and Europe, where the US essentially sided with Russia, prompted an emergency summit today of the EU and the UK, convened by President Macron of France.
This shows that countries can react quickly and work together when they feel that their interests are threatened. That said, these are ad hoc actions building on pre-existing groupings (e.g. BRICS, the EU, signatories to the ICC) and are somewhat transactional. Notice, for instance, that there has been no coordinated action for the US withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement or the World Health Organization (see below).
Other meaningful opposition
Other opposition actions group into active resistance by individuals refusing to carry out the administration’s wishes (for instance, 7 justice officials resigning over the directive to dismiss the case against New York City mayor Eric Adams); coordinated condemnatory statements (e.g. the appointment of Robert Kennedy as Health Secretary); requests for congressional investigation (e.g. Trump’s conflicts of interest); statements of intent (e.g. States reiterating their commitment to clean energy); large scale civic protests; and organisational decisions in response to the administration (e.g. leaving Elon Musk’s X, or the media increasing its fact checking of administration claims).
However, the pattern in the actions prompting opposition might be clearer if we look instead at what actions are going unopposed.
Trump administration actions with no coordinated opposition
The table below shows the list of actions where I have not been able to find any coordinated opposition3, grouped within the five broad domains of authoritarianism. Firstly, note that there are very few unopposed actions in the domains Dismantling Social Protections & Rights and or actions leading to employee dismissal or loss of federal funding. As we saw above, these are being actively challenged by organisations with a long history of opposing government in these spheres. So what about the rest?
Actions where opposition rests with national Congress (the House and Senate)
The largest set of unopposed actions are within the domain Undermining Democratic Institutions & Rule of Law. Many of these actions are subject to the explicit approval of Congress or at least require its tacit acquiescence. These range from appointment of cabinet picks (confirmed by the Senate), Congress’ role in oversight and investigations (e.g. conflicts of interest, political impropriety, ignoring legal process), to using its funding appropriation powers to protect federal programmes, to passing legislation (e.g. to protect certain federal appointments or agencies).
In theory, Congress is a co-equal branch of the State and an important check on presidential power. Both houses of Congress are now controlled by the Republican Party, and it is natural that they would support many of the President’s priorities. That said, they should nonetheless defend the law, the constitution, and their right of funding appropriation (currently being torn up by DOGE). Today’s Republican Party has been subordinated to Trump over the years since his 2016 election and accelerated following their acceptance of Trump’s lie of the 2020 election steal. More moderate Republicans have been forced out. Now they are kept in line by the combined threats of Trump’s willingness to launch personal attacks, his loyal MAGA base, and Musk’s social media mouthpiece. It seems vanishingly unlikely that a Republican Congress would vote to impeach Trump in a Watergate scenario (not least because so few voted to impeach Trump for the January 6th insurrection).
Without majorities, there is little the Democratic members of Congress can do, other than speak out and use whatever legislative leverage they have. So far the Democratic politicians have been slow to organise or coordinate a response.
Thus a key check on presidential power is currently missing. Even worse, it looks as if Congress may work with the President to weaken the third co-equal branch of the state: the judiciary. The House is already considering impeaching judges who rule against Trump’s orders. While this seems most performative (it seems impossible to get the two thirds majority required in the senate), we should not underestimate its indimidatory effect, weakening the rule of law in the US.
The Media is acquiescing
Almost all of the unopposed actions in the domain Suppressing Dissent and Controlling Information are to do with attacks on the media in some form or other. Here we have not only seen little opposition, but active submission. For instance, ABC News settled a lawsuit in December 2024 despite Trump’s flimsy case against them and CBS News appears about to settle over a lawsuit about their interview with Kamala Harris during the election. Meanwhile, Facebook has settled with Trump following his lawsuit after they suspended his account following the January 6th insurrection. Meanwhile, Elon Musk attacks other media organisations constantly, trying to undermine their credibility and drive people towards his own platform for news.
While some organisations (PEN America) or people (FCC Commissioner Anne Gomez) have criticised the administration’s actions, there has been no concerted pushback by media organisations.
I suspect this is for a number of reasons. Firstly, media organisations are less used to collective action, and they may consider their commercial interests to be served by their competitors being sued or stifled. Secondly, the Trump administration holds significant power over media corporations: access to the White House; influence over broadcasting licences; influence over corporate mergers; targeted regulatory scutiny; and new lawsuits. Thirdly, many of the owners of media outlets might be unwilling to upset Trump for their sake of their other businesses (e.g. Amazon’s owner Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post) or because they agree with his legislative agenda (e.g. Fox).
While the First Amendment of the Constitution provides strong freedom of speech protections, there are few legal routes for media organisations to protest targeted regulation or FCC investigations, intimidatory defamation lawsuits or reduced public funding for broadcasters such as PBS and NPR. Congress could step in to legislate to protect press freedom, but as discussed above, is highly unlikely to.
Scientists are disorganised, are less well suited to advocacy and have few ways to oppose
There has been relatively little push back from scientists on the administration’s attacks on science. While there are ongoing lawsuits around pauses in grant funding or pausing international health programmes, these are being driven by labour organisations or NGOs (see above), and not scientists or scientific bodies. Instead, some (but not all) academic journals, professional organisations, and universities are quietly censoring research and public output from terms such as “gender”, “diversity”, and “climate change” and updating or removing their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programmes. Publicly funded bodies such as NASA, the National Institutes for Health and the National Science Foundation have little choice but to comply. Individual scientists have spoken out against these moves, but many are also reporting self-censoring in fear of impact on their careers.
There are several challenges for scientists wanting to have a coordinated opposition. Firstly, the scientific community is spread across universities, private research institutes and government agencies and across hugely different disciplines making coordinated action, or even agreeing on a set of aligned interests, challenging.
Secondly, the large national grant making bodies are not independent of the federal government. The scientific community have little formal influence over which scientific areas are prioritised for funding and often require funder approval before publishing any results. When research grants and publications are the cornerstone of a scientific career, this becomes a problem. Additionally, universities are vulnerable to federal regulation or legislation and often try to avoid direct political fights.
Thirdly, most scientists just want to get on with their work with little interest in politics. Several scientific fields will feel relatively unaffected by the administration’s policies. Many scientists also feel an instictive aversion to advocacy, worried that it is not scientific or objective enough. Finally, some who benefit from changes in funding priorities will welcome the opportunity to further their own research.
We have already experienced the harms of state control of funding and self-censorship when previous regimes demanded ideology-driven science (e.g. in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia). In recent decades, scientists in the US (and many other countries) have grown accustomed to receiving state grant funding but with a high degree of independence on both research topic and research publication. This has left the scientific community unprepared for when that independence is revealed to be at the whim of the state with few, if any, legal protections.
The age of ‘soft policing’ of political and societal norms is over
Another set of unopposed actions are those that would, a few years ago, have been opposed by enforcing political and societal norms. For instance, a politician caught in an outright lie or peddling misinformation would resign. Equally, perceived corruption (e.g. Trump’s meme coins, or Musk’s conflicts of interest in DOGE), ethics violations, or a perceived misuse of executive authority (e.g. firing the president and board of the Kennedy Arts Centre or pardoning 1,600 convicted January 6th rioters) would have led to resignation or at least to moderation.
Those norms have been eroding for some time and across many countries. While violation of some norms still provoke outrage (e.g. condemnation of Trump’s blaming the DC plane crash on DEI initiatives), this outrage does not lead to accountability. Just the other week, after a DOGE employee resigned on being found to have published many racists posts on social media, Elon Musk, supported by Trump and JD Vance, rehired him. Conspiracy theories and misinformation on a whole host of topics, from Gaza to climate change to vaccines, are now at the heart of the US government.
The key problem is not that the norms have changed, but that the policing of them has. The key enforcers of norms in politics were political peers/superiors and the media, and through them, the voting public. Policing by political peers has been dismantled within the Republican party (see above) although it might still exist in the Democratic party. The media as policers of norms - and facts - has been severely weakened by the fragmentation of where people get their news, the silence of partisan media organisation in calling out their own, and the growing public distrust of mainstream media. Added to this, politicians ignoring norms can be seen as a strength by voters and increase their electability.
Societal norms rightly change over time, and there are always elements of subjectivity. They therefore do not lend themselves to ‘written in stone’ legal protections. Fighting conspiracy or misinformation is only getting harder. Utlimately, to enforce norms again, we need voters to hold politicians and parties who violate them accountable at the ballot box.
Countries feel - and act - weak in the face of US economic and military power
While countries have responded - and collectively - to actions that have threatened their direct interests (see above), they have been silent when they could get away with it. Few spoke up in support of Panama, Canada or Greenland. While Germany, the EU and China voiced concern over the US’ withdrawl from the WHO, there were no broader collective international statements and no country offered to increase their payments into WHO. Instead, employees at the WHO have resorted to crowdfunding.
Countries have been, understandably, keen to placate the US (e.g. Mexico and Canada to avoid blanket tariffs) or stay quiet in the hope of not attracting attention. Collective action must be the way forward - whether to oppose dangerous US policy (such as the ethnic cleansing of Gaza) or to forge on with international cooperation on priorities (such as climate change, health, trade, security). Actions could be either via strengthening existing bodies (WHO, WTO, ICC, UNHRC) or by developing new alliances, perhaps on particular issues such as trade or security. Key to this will be a deliberate reset in the decades of foreign policy in the West that had the US as a core ally and guarantor of security. This is now starting but necessitates both quick progress and deep thinking.
Where next?
The overview of where there has been opposition to Trump’s actions and who is doing the opposing has highlighted some key takeaways for me.
Firstly, legal protections are powerful. Where they are in place - particularly in civil rights and labour regulations - reaction has been swift and concerted. These protections were fought for over many decades, amended and added to over the years. For other sectors, the ways of doing things from 20 or 30 years ago are no longer fit for purpose and it is time for the media and scientists to consider what formal protections they might need, and start to organise to advocate for them. For instance, for science (my field), it might be about guaranteeing independence from funders over publication of research results, or advocating for nationally funded grant-making bodies to be at arms length from the executive, protecting them from political interference. It might be about creating structures that protect universities from government pressure, or strengthening the legal independence of nationally funded health bodies, such as those responsible for public health or providing health care. These issues are pertinent to many countries (including the UK), and not just the US. Sectors that are now being attacked would benefit from learning from those already experienced in advocacy or fighting for the rights of their members.
Another important area is the role of the judiciary in balancing the power of the executive. In the UK that could mean resisting any moves towards political appointments of judges. In the US that might mean contacting senators to oppose ideologically extreme judicial appointments.
For individuals wishing to get involved it might be supporting organisations already leading the fights; joining local grassroots organisations to support local communities and build awareness; or working with sectors with less experience or legal protections to build an advocacy platform. Finally of course there is electoral pressure - local and national congressional races matter.
This is not the work of months, but years, perhaps decades, both in the US and abroad. Within countries, the civil rights and labour movements have shown us that it can be done and how to do it. The international organisations established after the second world war show us it can be done on regional and global scales.
Further resources
I have also updated the original Venn Diagram (below) to show which actions had been opposed. I’ve tried to group actions so that those with opposition are nearest the centre. I used different coloured fonts to show whether an organised opposition exists. Blue font indicates that at least one lawsuit is in progress, purple font indicates some sort of other organised opposition, and red font indicates little or no meaninful opposition.
A high resolution PDF version of the diagram is available here and a table version here (worksheet “Categorised table with opposition marked”). The online spreadsheet also contains a table of categorised unopposed actions (sheet “Categorised table of unopposed actions”).
I have defined “organised opposition” to mean either definite legal action had been taken or that there has been some collective or consequential statement or action (e.g. on behalf of a national or international body; a protest march; refusal to comply with orders).
I’ve done this allocation using a combination of Google and an incredible lawsuit tracker by the group Just Security. I’m sure there will be things that I’ve missed and there are some judgement calls on how you allocate opposition to specific actions, or in how opposition is categorised.
I can’t guarantee that I’ve not missed some.
This article was originally published on Christina Pagel's Substack, and is reproduced with permission.
