‘Like a Mob Boss’: Trump’s Rivals Are Suddenly Defying Him and Barbara McQuade Says It Could Be ‘Contagious’

For much of Donald Trump’s political career, confrontation has been one of his most recognisable strategies. Political opponents, corporations, universities, media organisations and even foreign governments have often found themselves facing intense public pressure when they refuse to fall in line.

But a different pattern may now be emerging.

Barbara McQuade, a former US federal prosecutor and current University of Michigan law professor, believes a growing number of institutions and political figures are discovering that resisting Trump may carry fewer long-term costs than giving in to his demands.

McQuade has repeatedly compared Trump’s use of political and institutional pressure to tactics associated with organised crime. In an August interview about her book The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government, she argued that Trump has used power against law firms, universities, media organisations and foreign allies in ways she considers comparable to “extortion.”

Her latest argument is striking: people who once might have chosen accommodation are increasingly willing to push back.

Mark Carney Emerges as a Major Test for Trump

Perhaps the clearest example is Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Canada-US relations have deteriorated sharply amid an escalating tariff dispute. Rather than accepting Washington’s demands, Carney walked away from trade negotiations in August and backed retaliatory measures against the United States.

Trump subsequently escalated his rhetoric and tariff threats. Canada, however, did not immediately retreat.

On September 1, Carney said trade negotiations could resume only when the United States was prepared to engage seriously and constructively, while maintaining that any agreement must respect Canadian sovereignty.

That makes the confrontation about more than tariffs.

It has become a test of whether a country deeply economically connected to the United States can withstand pressure from Trump without eventually accepting Washington’s terms.

Carney’s approach has so far enjoyed considerable domestic backing. Reuters reported in late August that 76% of Canadians supported his response, although economists warned that prolonged trade conflict could eventually produce job losses, inflationary pressure and political difficulties at home.

‘Capitulating’ May Not Buy Peace, McQuade Argues

McQuade’s broader argument is that surrendering to pressure does not necessarily make that pressure disappear.

She has spent months developing this theme publicly and in her latest book, arguing that institutions which comply in the hope of restoring normal relations may instead signal that further pressure could work.

In an earlier interview, McQuade compared the dynamic to an extortionist repeatedly returning to someone who has already paid once.

Her criticism is explicitly political and remains disputed by Trump and his supporters, but it provides the framework through which she views the recent resistance.

The significance, in McQuade’s telling, is not simply that Trump has opponents. Every president does.

It is that organisations and political leaders that have something substantial to lose may increasingly conclude that defiance is preferable to accommodation.

Resistance Is Appearing Beyond Canada

The debate stretches well beyond Ottawa.

McQuade has pointed to law firms, universities and media organisations as institutions that have faced pressure from the Trump administration. In discussing her book, she accused the administration of targeting law firms through executive actions and using federal funding and other government powers to pressure universities.

ALSO READ : Why Did Donald Trump Win Again? The Deeper Reason Behind His Victory and Why His Political Grip May Be Weakening

Her criticism also extends to the Department of Justice.

McQuade has strongly criticised Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, over concerns about the Justice Department’s independence. Blanche, for his part, has rejected suggestions that Trump would ask him to behave illegally or unethically.

The clash reflects a wider question surrounding Trump’s second presidency: how much institutional resistance can the White House encounter before its ability to impose political costs begins to weaken?

Trump Remains an Exceptionally Powerful Political Force

None of this means Trump has suddenly lost control of the Republican Party or the wider political conversation.

He remains the central figure in the Republican Party, commands intense loyalty from a large section of its voter base and retains enormous power to shape national and international debate.

That distinction matters.

Growing resistance is not the same thing as political weakness.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to punish Republican critics, dominate news cycles and force political opponents to respond to issues on terms he has helped establish.

Even Canada’s confrontation carries enormous risk. The United States is its most important trading partner, meaning an extended tariff battle could inflict significant economic damage north of the border. Analysts have warned that Carney’s public support could weaken if Canadians begin experiencing deeper economic consequences.

A Bigger Question Ahead of America’s Political Battles

The emerging pattern nevertheless creates an intriguing question for the months ahead.

What happens if more governments, companies, universities, media organisations and politicians conclude that refusing Trump’s demands is less damaging than complying with them?

For McQuade, resistance itself can encourage more resistance.

Her argument is straightforward: once one powerful institution demonstrates that saying “no” is possible, others may become more willing to do the same.

Whether that becomes a lasting political shift remains uncertain. Trump still possesses extraordinary influence, while those confronting him may face significant financial, legal or political consequences.

But Canada’s escalating showdown with Washington shows that the theory is already being tested in real time.

And if Carney can sustain his position despite mounting economic pressure, the lesson could extend far beyond the US-Canada border: Trump’s opponents may increasingly decide that the greater risk is not defying him but giving in.