Trump, Yale deal would be authoritarianism by agreement | Opinion

Yale University's attempts to negotiate a settlement with the Trump administration to resolve accusations of racial discrimination in admissions made headlines recently.

This might seem like a sensible move, designed to bring Yale into compliance with the law and to repel attacks faced by Harvard University and other schools. However, even skeptics of diversity, equity and inclusion programs who might welcome a policy shift should understand the real cost of such deals.

They coerce institutions into agreeing that the country's chief executive can interpret and enforce laws unilaterally, undermining the rule of law itself.

Federal courts have found that the administration's suspension of federal funding for Harvard and UCLA (the University of California, Los Angeles) were unlawful and unconstitutional. A private agreement with Yale would allow an end run around the courts and Congress.

The consequences would ripple far beyond Yale and help to transform the president into the sole decider of what the law and the Constitution mean.

Trump threatens Yale, then offers to negotiate. It's his pattern.

The administration's pressure campaign follows a familiar pattern.

First, the government threatens catastrophic financial consequences, including steep fines, funding cutoffs, withdrawal of tax-exempt status, revocation of student visas, cancellation of security clearances, and ineligibility for federal grants and student loans.

Then the administration forces agreement to its slippery definitions of legal concepts such as sex, discrimination, antisemitism, terrorism and the scope of executive authority itself.

These tactics allow the administration to codify its own, often radical, views and establish executive power to reinterpret and enforce the law at will. The agreements bind schools to legal definitions and interpretations that go far beyond – and sometimes violate – established law.

Colleges set themselves up for legal liability

The University of Virginia's agreement (negotiated by McGuireWoods, the firm now representing Yale, under circumstances that have drawn scrutiny) requires adherence to Department of Justice guidance.

This guidance distorts the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard to prohibit even race-neutral policies if they seem designed to increase diversity. The administration also pressures universities to accept retroactive reinterpretations of the law.

The University of Pennsylvania's deal resolved alleged violations based on past conduct – allowing a transgender swimmer to compete – that at the time was permitted, if not required, by Title IX and by NCAA rules.

These agreements are vague, contradictory and contain unlawful terms that subject universities to ongoing legal jeopardy. For example, following Virginia's policy could imperil Yale's laudable efforts to expand access to low-income and first-generation college students.

Some agreements prohibit discrimination based on national origin, but limit the enrollment of foreign students. Others require universities to abide by a definition of sex drawn from an executive order that violates federal and state laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Provisions that conflict with the law and with one another expose institutions to liability from all directions. Also, the use of vague terms such as DEI, gender ideology and domestic terrorism bolster executive discretion and invite overcompliance.

The agreements that universities have already signed dangerously and unconstitutionally expanded government power. For example, the deals dictate rules restricting protest and free expression that violate First Amendment guarantees.

Northwestern University's deal prescribes the maintenance of a "security infrastructure," including private police forces and cooperation with law enforcement, which must intervene in real time to "prevent and investigate" violations of law and of university policies.

Schools have consented to indefinite federal oversight and control. For example, the agreements signed by Virginia, Cornell and Northwestern require that university presidents and trustees certify compliance quarterly, under penalty of perjury.

Virginia's agreement says the government may "in its sole discretion" reopen investigations temporarily suspended under the settlement. Alongside the administration's plan to prosecute "civil rights fraud," these provisions subject university leaders to a continuing threat of crushing civil and criminal liability.

Federal overreach extends beyond diversity policies

Abuses of executive authority against universities have spread to other areas. For example, masked agents' seizure of Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk in March 2025 seemed shocking and unprecedented, but now such treatment of noncitizens is routine.

The government issued administrative subpoenas to Columbia about student protesters it wished to deport. The federal government's executive branch now reportedly uses such subpoenas, which do not require court approval, to secretly extract from private companies personal data about individuals who criticize the government.

The administration branded student protesters as terrorist sympathizers and today seeks decades-long prison sentences for anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement demonstrators.

The government hopes a Yale deal will push other universities to fold. Yale should instead stand for the Constitution and the rule of law.

It can take heart from the unsuccessful attempt in 2025 to impose a "compact" on universities, thwarted when faculty, staff, students and alumni united in opposition across ideological, disciplinary and geographic lines.

Yale affiliates already are organizing to support such a courageous stance. Universities and law firms that have resisted the administration's pressure have won court victories, while those who have acceded find that bullies come back for more anyway.

The administration's tactics place university leaders under unenviable stress, but the existential nature of the threat is the reason not to consent to conditional reprieves of uncertain duration and value. In doing so, university leaders would agree to the executive branch's sole, unlimited and arbitrary power to (re)define the law.

We would all pay an incalculable price.

Serena Mayeri and Amanda Shanor, alumni of Yale University, teach law at the University of Pennsylvania, but the views expressed here are their own, not either university's.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump, Yale deal would be authoritarianism by agreement | Opinion

Reporting by Serena Mayeri and Amanda Shanor, Opinion contributors / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published July 10, 2026 at 3:05 AM.