Table of Contents
- The Rise of Vague Laws Under Trump
- Federal Judges Push Back
- The D.E.I. Crackdown and Its Ripple Effects
- Global Parallels: Echoes of Authoritarian Playbooks
- The Chilling Effect on Schools and Law Firms
- Sources
Vague Laws Rise as a Signature of Trump’s Second Term
In the early months of Donald Trump’s second presidency, a striking pattern has emerged: the strategic use of vague language in executive orders and federal directives. From canceling NIH research grants to threatening universities over undefined “illegal D.E.I.” policies, the administration has leaned heavily on imprecise terms to justify sweeping actions.
This isn’t just bureaucratic sloppiness—it’s a calculated power play. Legal experts and federal judges across the political spectrum warn that such vagueness undermines the rule of law, echoing tactics used by authoritarian regimes worldwide.
Federal Judges Push Back—Even Trump Appointees
Multiple federal courts have rebuked the administration for relying on undefined phrases like “promoting gender ideology” or “operating against the national interest.” In one notable case, Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee, condemned the NIH grant cancellations as based on “wholly unsupported statements” with “no operative definition.”
Even Trump-nominated judges joined the chorus. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich called the Department of Education’s anti-D.E.I. guidance “impossible to interpret,” while Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher vacated a key “Dear Colleague” letter, stating it enabled “arbitrary enforcement.”
Justice Jackson’s Calvinball Dissent
When the Supreme Court sided with the administration in an NIH funding case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent. Citing the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, she wrote: “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist… This administration always wins.” Her point? Rules that shift on a whim aren’t rules at all—they’re tools of control.
The D.E.I. Crackdown and Its Ripple Effects
No policy has leveraged vagueness more effectively than the campaign against “illegal D.E.I.” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, the Department of Education sent schools a “Dear Colleague” letter demanding they certify compliance with undefined standards—or risk losing federal funds and facing False Claims Act penalties.
Real-World Consequences
- Teachers in New Hampshire now avoid discussing Jim Crow or Reconstruction for fear of being labeled “indoctrinators.”
- Colorado State University restructured programs preemptively—only to be sued by Stephen Miller’s America First Legal group for “superficial changes.”
- The PhD Project, which supports underrepresented business students, lost over 60% of its university partners after being targeted for investigation.
Global Parallels: Echoes of Authoritarian Playbooks
U.S. diplomats once condemned China’s “picking quarrels” law and Russia’s “foreign agent” statutes as tools to silence dissent. Today, critics say Trump’s playbook mirrors those very tactics.
After the killing of right-wing figure Charlie Kirk, the administration launched a broad crackdown on “radical left” groups using terms like “anti-Americanism” and “anti-Christianity”—phrases reminiscent of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, where vague laws have shuttered NGOs and criminalized LGBTQ+ expression.
The Chilling Effect on Schools and Law Firms
The threat isn’t theoretical. Law firms like Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie face blacklisting over past work on Trump-related investigations. Judges have noted the chilling message: “Lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
In classrooms, teachers report a “witch-hunt” atmosphere. One high school English teacher still assigns Beloved—but no longer discusses it in class. “There’s a chill that’s gone through the classroom,” he said anonymously.
