Does Big Law love civil rights law because it enhances Big Law’s power, prestige and income?

Posted on March 24, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Big Law firms engage in civil rights law to enhance their power, prestige, and indirectly their income, rather than out of a deep passion for the field.
Research suggests that civil rights work, often done pro bono, boosts their reputation and attracts socially conscious clients, which can lead to more business.
The evidence leans toward Big Law valuing civil rights law for strategic benefits, such as visibility in high-profile cases…

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Does Big Law love civil rights law because it enhances Big Law’s power, prestige and income?

How Good Is Stratford?

Posted on March 24, 2025 by Luke Ford

Geopolitical analyst George Friedman reminds me of his protege Peter Zeihan. They both sound amazing and confident. Their track record is mixed.

Grok:

George Friedman is a prominent geopolitical analyst and forecaster, best known for founding Stratfor in 1996 and later Geopolitical Futures in 2015, where he serves as chairman. His work focuses on interpreting global events through a geopolitical lens, emphasizing the interplay of geography, politics, economics, and military factors to predict the behavior of nations. A New York Times bestselling author, Friedman has penned influential books like The Next 100 Years (2009) and The Storm Before the Calm (2020), which have garnered both acclaim and criticism. Below is an analysis and critique of his approach, strengths, and weaknesses, grounded in his public record and broader reception.
Analytical Approach and Methodology
Friedman’s methodology is rooted in geopolitical determinism, a framework that prioritizes structural factors—geography, resource distribution, and historical patterns—over individual agency or short-term political developments. He argues that nations’ actions are constrained and shaped by their physical realities, such as the United States’ rise being inevitable due to its geographic isolation and access to two oceans. This approach is evident in his cyclical model of U.S. history, outlined in The Storm Before the Calm, where he posits 80-year institutional cycles and 50-year socio-economic cycles drive predictable crises and renewals.
Strengths:

Long-Term Perspective: Friedman’s focus on enduring forces allows him to sidestep the noise of daily news cycles, offering forecasts that span decades. His prediction in The Next 100 Years of a resurgent Russia clashing with the West, exemplified by the 2014 Ukraine crisis, showcases this strength.

Clarity and Accessibility: His writing distills complex geopolitical dynamics into digestible narratives, making his work appealing to a broad audience beyond academic circles.

Track Record: Some forecasts, like the European Union’s economic strains and Poland’s rising regional influence, have aligned with subsequent events, lending credence to his model.
Weaknesses:

Overemphasis on Geography: Critics argue that Friedman’s determinism underplays technological innovation, cultural shifts, and human agency. For instance, his 1991 book The Coming War with Japan (co-authored with Meredith LeBard) predicted a U.S.-Japan conflict that never materialized, possibly overlooking economic interdependence and diplomatic evolution.

Broad Generalizations: His sweeping predictions can lack granularity. In The Next Decade (2011), he foresaw the U.S. managing regional power balances, but specifics—like the Middle East’s descent into chaos post-Arab Spring—eluded precise forecasting.

Confirmation Bias Risk: His reliance on historical cycles might lead him to fit events into preconceived patterns, potentially missing disruptive anomalies.
Key Forecasts and Their Accuracy
Friedman’s reputation hinges on his bold predictions, some of which have been prescient, while others have faltered:
Hits:
Russia’s Resurgence: In The Next 100 Years, he predicted Russia would reassert itself post-2000s, a forecast borne out by its actions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014, 2022).
EU Fragmentation: He anticipated economic and political stress in Europe, aligning with Brexit and the Eurozone crisis.
U.S. Domestic Turmoil: The Storm Before the Calm foresaw a crisis-ridden 2020s in America, which resonates with the polarization and unrest of recent years.

Misses:
Japan-U.S. War: The 1991 prediction was a high-profile misstep, ignoring Japan’s pacifist constitution and U.S.-Japan alliance post-Cold War.
Turkey’s Rise: Friedman has long touted Turkey as an emerging power, but its economic woes and regional overreach (e.g., in Syria) have yet to fully validate this.
China’s Decline: While he’s predicted China’s economic and social unraveling, its global influence persists, challenging his timeline.

These mixed results highlight a tension in Friedman’s work: his macro-level insights often ring true, but specific timelines and outcomes can falter under scrutiny.

Intellectual Style and Public Persona
Friedman’s style blends scholarly rigor with a flair for dramatic storytelling, earning him comparisons to a “Magic 8 Ball” (New York Times Magazine). His Hungarian-Jewish immigrant background and academic credentials—a Ph.D. in government from Cornell—lend him an outsider-insider perspective on American power, which he leverages effectively. At Geopolitical Futures, he positions himself as a non-ideological observer, aiming to “filter out the insignificant” for the “learned public.”

Strengths:

Engagement: His ability to captivate audiences—through books, speeches, and media appearances—amplifies his influence.

Independence: Breaking from Stratfor to found Geopolitical Futures reflects a commitment to his vision over corporate constraints.
Weaknesses:
Sensationalism: Critics argue his bold claims (e.g., a Polish-Mexican alliance in The Next 100 Years) verge on speculative fiction, risking credibility.
Overconfidence: His assertive tone can imply greater certainty than his methodology supports, as seen in the Japan misprediction.
Broader Critique

Friedman’s work invites comparison to other geopolitical thinkers like Samuel Huntington or John Mearsheimer, yet he stands apart for his populist accessibility and long-range focus. However, this comes with trade-offs:

Academic Reception: Traditional scholars often dismiss him for lacking peer-reviewed rigor, favoring instead his commercial appeal.
Adaptability: His deterministic lens may struggle with rapid technological shifts—like AI or climate change—whose impacts defy historical precedent.

Moral Dimension: Friedman rarely engages with the ethical implications of his forecasts, focusing on “what will happen” over “what should happen,” which can feel detached in polarized times.

Conclusion
George Friedman is a polarizing figure in geopolitics—celebrated for his foresight by admirers, critiqued for his misses by detractors. His strength lies in synthesizing structural trends into compelling narratives, offering a counterweight to short-termism in media and policy. Yet, his deterministic framework and occasional overreach expose him to accusations of oversimplification or hubris. As of March 24, 2025, his influence endures, particularly amid global upheaval, but his legacy will depend on how well his current forecasts—such as America’s 2020s crisis resolving into triumph—hold up. For now, he remains a provocative voice, best approached with both appreciation for his vision and skepticism of his precision.

Posted in Geography | Comments Off on How Good Is Stratford?

Trump vs Big Law

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

The trajectory of this battle depends on several factors, but here’s a reasoned assessment:
Escalation Against Other Firms: With a dozen more firms potentially in Trump’s crosshairs, the administration seems intent on expanding its punitive campaign. Firms tied to past investigations or Democratic affiliations—like Perkins Coie, linked to the Steele dossier—may face intensified pressure. The White House’s strategy appears to leverage executive power to disrupt these firms’ operations, particularly their government-related work, forcing them to either fight or fold.

Legal and Political Pushback: Perkins Coie’s ongoing lawsuit suggests some firms will resist through the courts, potentially challenging the legality of Trump’s orders. Outcomes here could set precedents—successful resistance might embolden others, while defeats could push more firms toward negotiation. Politically, Trump’s moves may galvanize opposition, especially given figures like Karp’s support for Kamala Harris, but the administration’s momentum could deter open defiance.

Industry Impact: Big Law’s response will shape its future. If more firms follow Paul Weiss’s lead, it could normalize capitulation to political pressure, altering the sector’s independence. Conversely, sustained resistance might solidify a bloc of firms willing to endure short-term losses for long-term autonomy. Client behavior—whether they flee targeted firms or stand by them—will be a key indicator.

Trump’s Endgame: This battle seems driven by retribution (e.g., targeting Pomerantz’s old firm) and a desire to assert dominance over elite institutions. Success could embolden Trump to extend similar tactics beyond law firms to other sectors. However, overreach risks judicial or congressional backlash, though the latter seems unlikely in a polarized climate as of March 23, 2025.

Key Indicators to Watch
Court Rulings: Outcomes of lawsuits like Perkins Coie’s will signal whether Trump’s orders hold legal weight.

Firm Responses: Will more negotiate like Paul Weiss, or fight like Perkins Coie? Capitulation could accelerate Trump’s campaign.

Client Moves: If major clients abandon targeted firms, it’ll amplify the orders’ impact.

New Targets: The identity of the next dozen firms could reveal the scope of Trump’s vendetta—political, personal, or both.

In short, Trump’s war on Big Law is at a pivotal moment. Paul Weiss’s deal may be a harbinger of pragmatic surrender, but resistance from others could prolong the conflict. The stakes are high: beyond survival, this is about whether an administration can bend a cornerstone of the legal establishment to its will. By mid-2025, we’ll likely see either a wave of compliance or a hardened opposition taking shape.

Grok’s Deep Think says:

Big Law firms are likely vulnerable to Donald Trump’s executive actions, with recent orders targeting firms like Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss, affecting their operations.
Legal challenges and negotiations offer some protection, but the potential for a chilling effect on the profession remains a concern.
The controversy lies in whether these actions are constitutional, with courts blocking some orders, yet the political climate adds uncertainty.
Vulnerability Overview
Big Law firms, such as Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Paul Weiss, face significant risks from Trump’s executive orders, which can suspend security clearances and limit federal access, impacting their business, especially with government clients. For example, Perkins Coie sued over an order restricting their operations, and a judge temporarily blocked it, suggesting legal recourse is possible. However, the fear of retaliation might make firms hesitant to take on controversial cases, potentially altering their independence.
Industry Response
While some firms are fighting back in court, others, like Paul Weiss, have negotiated deals, agreeing to pro bono work to resolve conflicts. The legal community, including bar associations, has criticized these actions, but many firms remain silent, possibly due to fear, highlighting the complex balance between resistance and self-preservation.
Unexpected Detail: Negotiation as a Strategy
An unexpected approach is negotiation, as seen with Paul Weiss agreeing to provide $40 million in legal services to causes Trump supports, showing firms might prioritize survival over confrontation, which could set a precedent for future interactions.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Big Law’s Vulnerability to Donald Trump
This note provides a comprehensive examination of the vulnerability of Big Law firms to actions by Donald Trump, based on recent developments as of March 23, 2025. It covers the nature of executive orders, legal and industry responses, and potential long-term implications, offering a detailed perspective for stakeholders in the legal sector.
Background and Context
Big Law refers to large, prestigious law firms often involved in high-profile corporate, political, and governmental matters. Recent actions by President Donald Trump have targeted several such firms, including Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Paul Weiss, through executive orders. These orders aim to suspend security clearances, limit access to federal buildings, and restrict federal contracts, citing reasons such as political affiliations and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
For instance, an executive order against Perkins Coie, issued on March 6, 2025, accused the firm of “dishonest and dangerous activity” related to its representation of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its DEI practices (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP – The White House). Similarly, Covington & Burling faced orders for representing special counsel Jack Smith, and Paul Weiss was targeted due to a former partner’s involvement in investigations against Trump.
Immediate Impacts on Targeted Firms
The executive orders have direct and immediate impacts on the targeted firms:
Operational Disruption: Loss of security clearances affects firms’ ability to handle cases involving classified information, crucial for government-related work. For example, Perkins Coie’s order barred its employees from federal buildings and terminated government contracts, paralyzing its operations for such clients.
Financial Strain: The potential loss of clients, especially those reliant on federal access, could lead to significant revenue drops. The article from The New York Times notes concerns in the legal community about firms avoiding representation due to fear of retribution.
Legal Costs: Firms are incurring costs to challenge these orders, with Perkins Coie hiring Williams & Connolly, an elite firm, to fight the administration (The New York Times).

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings
Firms have responded by filing lawsuits, with Perkins Coie leading the charge. On March 11, 2025, they filed a suit claiming the order violated constitutional rights, arguing it was an “affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice” (Above the Law). A federal judge, Beryl Howell, issued a temporary restraining order on March 12, 2025, blocking enforcement, stating it cast a “chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession” (NPR). This ruling suggests the judiciary may serve as a check on executive overreach, but the outcome of ongoing cases remains uncertain.
Legal experts, as noted in Reuters, argue these orders may violate First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, representing unprecedented acts of retribution. This legal pushback is crucial, but the process could be lengthy and costly, adding to firms’ vulnerability.
Negotiation as a Strategy
An unexpected development is the negotiation route taken by Paul Weiss. On March 20, 2025, they reached a deal with the Trump administration, agreeing to provide $40 million in legal services to causes like the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and to audit their hiring practices to ensure no DEI policies, in exchange for withdrawing the executive order (The New York Times). This approach, while ensuring survival, raises questions about the independence of the legal profession, as firms might prioritize compliance over principle.
Industry Response and Silence
The response from Big Law has been mixed. While Perkins Coie and others are litigating, many firms remain silent, as reported in Reuters. This silence is attributed to fear of retaliation, with some lawyers speaking out individually on platforms like LinkedIn, but firms avoiding institutional responses. Junior lawyers at firms like Skadden are pushing for a larger response, but the lack of unified action heightens vulnerability.
The legal community, however, is not entirely passive. The American College of Trial Lawyers and American Bar Association have criticized these actions as threats to the justice system (CNN Politics), and law schools like Georgetown are defending DEI curricula. This collective pushback could provide some protection, but the fear factor remains a significant barrier.
Long-Term Implications and Chilling Effect
The potential long-term implications are concerning. If upheld, these actions could set a precedent for future administrations to target law firms based on political affiliations, undermining the adversarial system. The “chilling effect,” as described by Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University law professor, in CNN Politics, might lead firms to self-censor, avoiding cases involving political figures or sensitive issues. This could alter the landscape of legal representation, particularly for marginalized groups or political opponents.
Moreover, the White House’s plan to review other “large, influential, or industry leading law firms” for DEI practices, as mentioned in Above the Law, suggests a broader campaign, potentially targeting up to 15 firms, increasing the scope of vulnerability.
Conclusion
Big Law firms are vulnerable to Donald Trump’s actions due to the direct operational and financial impacts of executive orders, compounded by the fear of retaliation and potential chilling effect on the profession. However, legal challenges and negotiation provide avenues for resistance, with courts showing willingness to intervene. The industry’s mixed response, with some firms litigating and others negotiating, reflects the complex balance between survival and principle. The long-term implications, particularly the risk of setting a precedent for political targeting, remain a significant concern as of March 23, 2025.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Trump vs Big Law

Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power by Alex Isenstadt (3-23-25)

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Posted in America | Comments Off on Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power by Alex Isenstadt (3-23-25)

What are the top 5 right-wing institutions in America?

Posted on March 23, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for promoting free-market policies, limited government, and traditional values. It played a significant role in shaping policy through initiatives like Project 2025. In 2022, its revenue was reported at approximately $112 million, with assets exceeding $300 million, bolstered by major donations from conservative donors like the WL Amos Sr Foundation and others. Its financial scale and influence make it a top contender.

Koch Industries (via affiliated political spending)
While Koch Industries is a private corporation, not a traditional “institution,” its owners, Charles and David Koch (David passed away in 2019), have funneled vast sums into right-wing causes through entities like Americans for Prosperity (AFP). AFP, a key libertarian-conservative advocacy group, had a budget of over $100 million annually in recent election cycles, with Koch-related funding often exceeding $400 million across their network in peak years. This financial footprint in conservative politics is unmatched, though it’s spread across multiple organizations.

National Rifle Association (NRA)
The NRA is a powerhouse in right-wing advocacy, particularly on Second Amendment issues. Despite legal and financial challenges, it reported revenues of around $211 million in 2021, with historical highs near $400 million in earlier years. Its assets and membership dues (over 5 million members) keep it a major player, though its financial dominance has waned slightly due to internal issues.

Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
CPI has emerged as a significant hub for right-wing organizing, connecting GOP lawmakers with far-right activists. It received a $25 million donation in 2021 from Mike Rydin, and tax filings show 2022 revenues of about $45 million, with rapid growth since. Its ties to Project 2025 and groups like America First Legal amplify its financial and political reach, likely pushing its budget higher by 2025.

Turning Point USA (TPUSA)
TPUSA, a youth-focused conservative nonprofit, promotes right-wing ideas on college campuses and beyond. Its revenue has grown significantly, reaching $55 million in 2022, driven by grassroots fundraising and high-profile donors like the Bradley Foundation. With assets and influence expanding, it’s a rising financial force in the conservative ecosystem.

Notes and Caveats
Data Limitations: Exact 2025 figures aren’t available yet, so these rankings rely on 2021–2023 data from IRS filings, news reports, and watchdog groups like OpenSecrets. Trends suggest these organizations remain leaders.

Scope: I excluded for-profit media (e.g., Fox News) and political parties (e.g., RNC), focusing on nonprofits and advocacy groups. Koch Industries is an exception due to its outsized role in funding right-wing causes.

Ranking Challenges: Financial “size” varies by metric—revenue, assets, or spending. Heritage and NRA lead in direct revenue, while Koch’s network dominates in broader political spending.

How does the financial size of American institutions controlled by the right compare to the size of American institutions controlled by the left? It seems to me it is a ratio of 1/100 (the left is 100 times more powerful in American institutional power).

Grok:

Right-Wing Institutions
For the right, major players include:
Heritage Foundation: A leading conservative think tank, with 2022 revenue of $112 million and assets over $300 million. It’s a hub for policy influence, like Project 2025.

Koch Network: Koch Industries, a private firm, channels funds through groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP). AFP’s budget has exceeded $100 million annually, with Koch-related political spending peaking at $400 million in some cycles. The network’s total influence is harder to pin down but likely reaches billions over time.

National Rifle Association (NRA): Historically a financial giant, with 2021 revenue at $211 million (down from $400 million peaks), though its clout has dipped due to legal issues.

Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI): Gaining traction, CPI had $45 million in 2022 revenue, with growth fueled by large donations.

Turning Point USA (TPUSA): A youth-focused group with $55 million in 2022 revenue, expanding rapidly.

Beyond these, right-wing media like Fox News (part of Fox Corp, 2023 revenue $14.9 billion) and smaller outlets add to the ecosystem, though their for-profit status complicates direct political funding comparisons.
Left-Wing Institutions
For the left, notable examples include:
Center for American Progress (CAP): A progressive think tank with 2022 revenue of $47 million, influential in Democratic policy circles.

Open Society Foundations: Founded by George Soros, this global network spent $1.5 billion in 2023, with significant U.S. impact (exact U.S. allocation unclear but substantial).

Tides Foundation: A donor-advised fund supporting progressive causes, with 2022 grants of $712 million, though not all U.S.-focused.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): A legal and advocacy group with $309 million in 2022 revenue, leaning left on social issues.

Media Outlets: MSNBC (part of Comcast, 2023 revenue $125 billion across all operations) and NPR (2023 revenue $318 million) align left, but their corporate or public funding muddies direct comparison.

Labor unions, often left-leaning, also wield financial power—e.g., the AFL-CIO’s affiliates reported $167 million in 2022 revenue—but their focus is narrower.
Comparison and Ratio Analysis
Your 1/100 ratio implies left-wing institutions have $100 in financial size for every $1 on the right. Let’s test this with rough aggregates:
Right-Wing Estimate: Summing annual revenues of key nonprofits (Heritage $112M, NRA $211M, CPI $45M, TPUSA $55M) gives ~$423 million. Adding Koch spending ($400M in big years) and a fraction of Fox News revenue (say $1B of its $14.9B as political influence) might push this to $1.8–2 billion annually. Assets (e.g., Heritage’s $300M) and untracked groups could double this to $4 billion as a conservative ceiling.

Left-Wing Estimate: CAP ($47M), ACLU ($309M), and a portion of Tides ($300M U.S.-estimated) total ~$656 million. Open Society’s U.S. spending (assume $500M) and bits of MSNBC/NPR revenue (e.g., $1B combined influence) might reach $2–2.5 billion. Unions add $200M–$500M, pushing a plausible range to $3–5 billion, with assets and smaller groups possibly hitting $6–8 billion.

This suggests a ratio closer to 2:1 or 3:1 (left over right), not 1/100. Even if we factor in broader institutional power—like universities (often left-leaning, with endowments like Harvard’s $50 billion) or tech giants (e.g., Google’s $305 billion 2023 revenue, loosely left-aligned)—the gap grows but doesn’t approach 100:1 without drastic assumptions.
Broader Context
Media Claims: Posts on X (e.g., from March 19, 2025) claim Democratic media valuation ($281B) dwarfs Republican media ($33B). This includes corporate giants (e.g., Comcast) versus Fox and Rogan, but it’s skewed by non-political revenue and doesn’t reflect institutional control.

Donor Influence: The left has Soros and tech billionaires; the right has Kochs and Adelson heirs. Forbes’ 2023 billionaire list shows more left-leaning donors, but spending is competitive.

Limitations: Data gaps (private foundations, corporate influence) and differing metrics (revenue vs. assets) make precision elusive. Your 1/100 perception might stem from cultural dominance (e.g., academia, Hollywood), not just financials.

Conclusion
The financial size of left-wing institutions likely exceeds the right’s, perhaps by 2:1 to 5:1 based on direct organizational data, far from 1/100. Including indirect influence (media, academia) might widen this to 10:1 or 20:1 in extreme scenarios, but 100:1 overstates it without evidence. The left’s edge is real but not that vast—power balances more than raw numbers suggest.

All major American cultural institutions and all major universities are on the left and all government unions are on the left. There are no right-wing equivalents to the left’s stranglehold on American universities. NGOs are overwhelmingly on the left.

You’re making a strong claim: that the left dominates major American cultural institutions, universities, government unions, and NGOs, with no comparable right-wing equivalents, particularly in universities. You’re also implying this contributes to a significant financial and power imbalance, building on our prior discussion. Let’s break this down and assess the financial size and influence, focusing on March 23, 2025, as the current date, while addressing your points directly.
Cultural Institutions
Major cultural institutions—like museums, Hollywood, and mainstream media—do lean left. The Smithsonian Institution’s 2023 budget was $1.1 billion (mostly federal funding), with exhibits often reflecting progressive narratives. Hollywood’s film industry, via studios like Disney (2023 revenue $88.9 billion), pumps out content with left-leaning undertones, though driven by profit more than ideology. The “big three” TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and CNN/MSNBC (Comcast’s $125 billion umbrella) align left editorially. Right-wing equivalents exist—Fox News ($14.9 billion revenue), Newsmax, OANN—but their scale and cultural reach are smaller. The left’s financial edge here could be 5:1 or more, considering revenue disparities (e.g., $200 billion+ for left-leaning media vs. $20–30 billion for right-leaning).
Universities
You’re right that American universities overwhelmingly tilt left. Harvard’s endowment is $50.7 billion (2023), Yale’s $41.4 billion, and the University of California system’s budget exceeds $47 billion annually. Surveys (e.g., from the National Association of Scholars, 2022) show faculty political donations 95%+ to Democrats in elite schools. The right has no equivalent ecosystem—Liberty University (2022 revenue ~$1.2 billion) and Hillsdale College (assets ~$1 billion) are outliers but dwarfed by the Ivy League and public giants. The top 50 U.S. universities’ endowments total over $500 billion, nearly all left-leaning culturally. Financially, this is a 50:1 or 100:1 mismatch, supporting your “stranglehold” point.
Government Unions
Government unions, like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Education Association (NEA), lean heavily left. The NEA, with 3 million members, had $377 million in 2022 revenue, and its political spending (95%+ to Democrats per OpenSecrets) amplifies its influence. The AFL-CIO, covering many public workers, reported $167 million, also left-aligned. Right-wing equivalents (e.g., National Right to Work Foundation) exist but are tiny, with budgets in the single-digit millions. The left’s financial dominance here might be 20:1 or higher, driven by dues and lobbying power.
NGOs
NGOs do skew left. The Tides Foundation ($712 million in 2022 grants), Open Society Foundations ($1.5 billion globally, significant U.S. share), and ACLU ($309 million) dwarf right-wing counterparts like Heritage ($112 million) or Turning Point USA ($55 million). GuideStar data (2023) shows thousands of progressive nonprofits (e.g., environmental, social justice) outnumbering conservative ones by 3:1 or more in count, and likely more in funding—left-leaning NGOs might total $10–15 billion annually vs. $2–3 billion for the right, a 5:1 ratio.
Financial Comparison Revisited
Adding these sectors:
Left: Universities ($500 billion in endowments, $100 billion+ operating budgets), media ($200–300 billion revenue), unions ($1–2 billion), NGOs ($10–15 billion) = $800 billion+ in financial size (mixing assets and revenue for scale).

Right: Media ($20–30 billion), universities ($5–10 billion), unions (negligible), NGOs ($2–3 billion) = $30–40 billion tops.

This yields a 20:1 to 25:1 ratio overall, not your 1/100 (100:1), though universities alone approach that extreme. The left’s control of institutional infrastructure—especially academia—amplifies this beyond raw dollars, as cultural influence compounds financial power.
Why No Right-Wing Equivalents?
Universities: The right lacks a parallel system because historical academia evolved as a progressive bastion post-WWII, and conservative efforts (e.g., Hillsdale) haven’t scaled. X posts (e.g., March 2025) lament this, noting left-wing gatekeeping in hiring and funding.

Cultural Momentum: Hollywood and media thrive on urban, cosmopolitan audiences, aligning left. Right-wing alternatives struggle with smaller markets.

Unions/NGOs: Public-sector unions grew with government expansion (a left-friendly trend), and NGOs reflect donor bases—progressive billionaires like Soros outpace conservative ones in this space.

Conclusion
Your 1/100 ratio overstates the financial gap across all institutions—20:1 to 30:1 fits better based on tangible data—but you’re spot-on about the left’s dominance, especially in universities, where it’s closer to 100:1. The right has pockets of financial strength (Koch network, Fox), but no systemic counterweight to the left’s cultural and institutional lock. This imbalance isn’t just money; it’s structural entrenchment.

How does Trump’s war on American institutions dominated by the left conform to past political patterns in America and where does it differ?

American politics has a long tradition of leaders clashing with entrenched institutions, often when they’re seen as misaligned with a movement’s goals:
Andrew Jackson vs. the Elites (1829–1837)
Jackson, a populist outsider, railed against the Second Bank of the United States, eastern elites, and a perceived aristocratic establishment. He vetoed the bank’s charter in 1832, framing it as a corrupt tool of the wealthy, and shifted power to “the common man.” His rhetoric and actions targeted centralized power, much like Trump’s attacks on “the deep state.”

Theodore Roosevelt vs. Trusts (1901–1909)
TR took on corporate monopolies (e.g., Standard Oil), using antitrust laws to break their grip on the economy. While not ideologically “left” or “right” by today’s terms, he challenged institutional power seen as unaccountable, akin to Trump’s framing of media and academia as out-of-touch.

Franklin D. Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court (1933–1945)
FDR’s New Deal faced resistance from a conservative Supreme Court, prompting his 1937 court-packing plan. He sought to bend an institution to his vision, paralleling Trump’s desire to reshape government agencies.

Richard Nixon vs. the Media and Bureaucracy (1969–1974)
Nixon distrusted the “liberal media” and federal bureaucracy, famously using his “silent majority” rhetoric to rally supporters against them. His administration wiretapped journalists and created an enemies list, presaging Trump’s “fake news” crusade.

These cases show a recurring pattern: outsider presidents (or those styling themselves as such) attacking institutions they view as hostile, often leveraging populist sentiment to justify disruption.
Trump’s Approach: Conformity to Patterns
Trump’s “war” fits this mold in several ways:
Populist Outsider Stance: Like Jackson and Nixon, Trump positions himself against an elite “swamp”—media (CNN, NYT), academia (Ivy League), and government (FBI, DOJ). His 2016 campaign and 2025 policies echo Jackson’s anti-establishment fervor, railing against “rigged systems.”

Rhetorical Assault: Nixon’s “media bias” complaints resemble Trump’s “enemy of the people” label for outlets like MSNBC. Both used distrust to rally a base, though Trump’s megaphone (X, Truth Social) amplifies this beyond Nixon’s TV era.

Institutional Power Grabs: FDR’s court-packing mirrors Trump’s efforts to stack courts (e.g., three Supreme Court justices by 2020) and purge disloyal bureaucrats (e.g., Schedule F proposal, reintroduced in 2025). Both sought to realign institutions with their agendas.

Base Mobilization: Jackson’s “common man” and Nixon’s “silent majority” prefigure Trump’s MAGA coalition, energized by promises to dismantle left-leaning strongholds like universities or unions.

Where Trump Differs
Trump’s approach breaks from tradition in scope, style, and context:
Scale and Breadth
Past leaders targeted specific foes (Jackson’s bank, TR’s trusts). Trump’s war spans multiple sectors—media, academia, NGOs, government unions, even cultural icons like Hollywood—reflecting the left’s broader institutional dominance we discussed (20:1 to 30:1 financial edge). No prior figure waged such a multi-front campaign.

Personalization and Media Ecosystem
Trump’s attacks are uniquely personal (“Crooked Hillary,” “Sleepy Joe”) and fueled by a modern right-wing media machine (Fox, OANN, X influencers) that Jackson or Nixon lacked. His 2025 use of X to call out “woke” universities or “Marxist” NGOs has no historical parallel in immediacy or reach.

Rejection of Norms
FDR and TR worked within institutional frameworks (laws, elections); Trump often flouts them. His 2020 election fraud claims and January 6, 2021, fallout—still reverberating in 2025—mark a willingness to undermine democratic processes, unlike predecessors who bent but didn’t break the system.

Polarization Context
Earlier battles occurred in less polarized times. The left’s cultural lock (e.g., $500 billion university endowments vs. $5–10 billion for the right) and Trump’s response reflect a 21st-century divide—exacerbated by social media—that dwarfs Nixon’s era. X posts in 2025 show his base sees this as existential, not just political.

Policy Aggression
Trump’s 2025 moves—like defunding “leftist” universities (proposed in his 2024 platform) or targeting government unions via executive orders—go beyond rhetoric. Jackson killed a bank; Trump aims to gut entire sectors, a scale shift enabled by modern governance tools.

Financial and Power Lens
Our prior data (left’s $800 billion+ vs. right’s $30–40 billion) underscores why Trump’s war feels unprecedented. Past leaders faced narrower power blocs; Trump confronts a left-leaning monolith—academia alone outstrips all right-wing institutions combined. His strategy (e.g., 2025 education budget cuts floated on X) mirrors historical disruption but targets a vastly bigger, more entrenched foe.
Conclusion
Trump conforms to a pattern of populist outsiders battling institutional power, echoing Jackson’s defiance, Nixon’s paranoia, and FDR’s ambition. But he differs in his all-out scope, norm-breaking tactics, and the polarized, media-driven 2025 landscape. Historically, such wars reshaped institutions (Jackson’s bank demise, FDR’s New Deal wins); Trump’s success—or overreach—may hinge on whether his base’s energy can match the left’s financial and cultural fortress. It’s familiar, yet uniquely uncharted.

Posted in America | Comments Off on What are the top 5 right-wing institutions in America?