IN SUMMARY
by Alfredo Cuéllar
“The most dangerous power isn’t the one that shouts,
but the one that silences those who could expose it.”
— From the book Micropolitics
Introduction
Donald Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing the paper of defaming him during the 2024 presidential campaign, is not an isolated event. It is part of a micropolitical apparatus designed to intimidate, manipulate, and control information. In this arena, news outlets, universities, and even wire services face a stark choice: resist or yield. The danger is that many have chosen the latter.
- Lawsuits as weapons of power
Trump has used the courts as a political tool throughout his life, and now, backed by presidential power, he wields them even more forcefully. Even when lawsuits lack solid legal grounds, they serve a clear function: to discipline and wear down opponents. Several news organizations have already yielded, signing agreements that soften their coverage— a gross and significant error, though understandable within a pragmatic rationality in a country where everything is measured in money and cost.
This pattern repeats across universities that cancel uncomfortable lectures, communications agencies that soften critical reports to avoid losing contracts, and media companies that prefer to settle rather than face lengthy litigation.
- NYU canceled Joanne Liu’s talk
- New York University canceled a lecture by Dr. Joanne Liu (former president of Doctors Without Borders) because some slides were considered potentially “anti-government” or politically sensitive regarding Gaza and foreign aid cuts.
- Although she was asked to edit the material, many interpret the move as part of a climate of self-censorship in universities fearing political or financial reprisals.
- Associated Press (AP) vs. the White House / Trump Administration
- AP filed suit (Associated Press v. Budowich) after the White House blocked its access to certain official events. The demand was that AP change editorial style or terminology (for example, referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”).
- It exemplifies how the executive seeks to impose conditions on reporting, forcing outlets to choose between rejecting such alterations or losing access and credibility with the public.
- Media lawsuits and settlements
- ABC News reached a $15 million settlement with Donald Trump over a defamation suit he filed regarding comments made by George Stephanopoulos.
- Other outlets—The Wall Street Journal, CBS News / 60 Minutes, and more—have faced lawsuits or legal threats, often leading to “adjustments” or anticipatory self-censorship to avoid costly court battles and public trials.
- Universities adjusting events and administrative principles under political pressure
- A recent example is Harvard and other universities modifying lectures, vetting or challenging presentations, or canceling speakers because their topics or critiques were deemed politically sensitive— even when such cases never reach court, they become public news (NYU being a clear example). Some presidents have resigned, and other universities have yielded by changing inclusion and diversity policies and even sharing information about their students.
- The authoritarian power playbook
A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the NYT, compared it to practices in Hungary, India, Brazil, or Turkey. The anti-press playbook follows five steps:
- Sow distrust in independent outlets and normalize harassment of journalists.
- Exploit civil courts to impose costs.
- Weaponize regulations to harass.
- Mobilize powerful allies to amplify attacks.
- Reward loyal outlets and punish the critical ones.
When companies, universities, or agencies accept these rules, they legitimize the game and normalize what should be unacceptable.
- Excessive pragmatism: a trap
Business or academic pragmatism suggests that “giving a little” avoids trouble. In reality, each concession becomes a victory for abusive power.
- Outlets that agree to change headlines to avoid being sued.
- Communications agencies that soften investigations to avoid ruffling feathers.
- Universities that, fearing loss of funding or political favors, silence critical voices.
In every case, Micropolitics exposes the paradox: what seems like savvy negotiating is, in fact, the consolidation of injustice.
- Micropolitics and its ethical limits
Micropolitics teaches us to identify the invisible movements of power. It also marks the brakes and limits: values and ethics.
- An actor may have the force to intimidate, but without legitimacy it devolves into authoritarianism.
- An institution may strike deals to survive, but in doing so it undermines its very purpose and loses moral authority.
- Ethics is the counterweight that keeps Micropolitics from becoming pure manipulation.
Conclusion
Each time a company, university, or outlet yields to pressure, it strengthens those seeking to silence criticism. At stake is not only freedom of the press, but society’s capacity to resist manipulation.
Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times symbolizes something larger: a contest between authoritarian power and the ethical limits of democracy. Micropolitics reminds us that power is not contained by cunning alone, but by the decision not to yield where yielding means betraying fundamental values.
There is also a cautionary example here for other nations—especially relevant to Mexico—where the proposed judicial reform points to an even greater threat than what Trump is attempting in the United States.
Dr. Alfredo Cuéllar is a specialist in Micropolitics, an international consultant, and a retired professor at California State University, Fresno. He has worked at dozens of universities, including Harvard. His articles focus on migrants, politics, sociology, culture, and current affairs. Inquiries and comments: alfredocuellar@me.com
