“Trump made me do it.”

Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it.

For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The “TDI defense” is born.

They did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action.

Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along.

Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses.

At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration’s orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice.

In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI.

The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to “have them at hello,” as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends.

Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on “institutional neutrality.” But then UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: “I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.”  She added, “I love breaking rules.”

The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. However, Pugh’s approach to rules in general has long been followed by college administrators. After the Supreme Court declared that universities like Harvard and UNC were engaging in racial discrimination in admissions, some schools set out to eliminate the overt uses of race while seeking to achieve the same results covertly.

The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, “We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.” 

Once established, these  DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for “reform,” their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause.

While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to “equity” or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions.

Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful.

This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majorities who are discriminated against.

For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law.

Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI.

In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications.

Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that “to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.” That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has “lost touch with voters.” 

Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. 

The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”