The Trump administration, backed by Project 2025 allies, continues its assault on the rule of law — facing little opposition from Republican leadership, including here in Virginia.

The latest move? Slashing already-appropriated National Institute of Health (NIH) funding for research institutions tackling cancer and dementia — institutions like University of Richmond, Virginia Tech, and Virginia Commonwealth University. The stakes are high; these three universities alone will bring over $400 million in research to the Commonwealth this year.

Trump tried this before, pushing to cut NIH overhead funding in his 2018 budget, but Congress rejected it. Now, he is bypassing Congress altogether, issuing what is likely another illegal executive directive to do so. Republican statewide leaders remain on the sidelines, either complicitly silent or, in the case of Gov. Youngkin, embracing the cuts as “common sense.”

Few would argue against finding greater efficiencies in our research institutions. But does this across-the-board chainsaw approach make sense?

And is it even legal?

That answer may come soon. Twenty-two state attorneys general have sued to block the cuts. Virginia’s Attorney General Jason Miyares, however, refused to join them. A federal court has ordered NIH payments to temporarily resume — but only to institutions in those 22 states.

Virginia’s research institutions are now on the outside looking in. Their funding — and their ability to deliver on groundbreaking research — is in jeopardy. Will Virginia join the lawsuit? Don’t count on it.

A slow-moving constitutional crisis

With many of Trump’s early moves stalled in court, one might assume his agenda has been seriously compromised.

This would be a mistake, and misunderstands a larger scheme aimed at the heart of our institutions and even democracy itself. Trump’s playbook is simple: create disruption and force dilemmas. Begin with an issue with broad public appeal — like government efficiency or cuts to universities.

Then, issue an arguably illegal directive that goes far beyond what is necessary, sidestepping Congress in the process. The opposition is left to respond by press releases or filing lawsuits. If courts uphold Trump’s edict, he wins. If the courts strike it down, attack the judiciary and appeal, hoping for a favorable ruling from a higher court. If all else fails, quietly ignore the court order — as happened when federal funds remained frozen even after a judge ordered their release.

Throughout the debate, assert the power of the Presidency, attack our institutions, and suggest that our democratic process and Constitution do not work as intended. What results is an increase in anger among large segments of the electorate that questions democracy’s ability to deliver on its promises, or who believe that Trump is merely trying to root out the malingerers in a bloated federal bureaucracy. Whether this amounts to a coup can be argued, but the pattern is clear:

Trump is actively undermining the institutions that uphold democracy. The real question is what happens years from now, when legitimacy has been further eroded, and the damage is irreversible.

Youngkin and Miyares in lockstep

As Trump tests the rule of law, Youngkin and Miyares continue to endorse his actions or remain silent.

When Trump issued an executive order targeting the federal workforce — 145,000 of whom live in Virginia — Youngkin dismissed concerns, calling the federal government “bloated” and saying he expects “job reductions.” When the administration proposed that federal employees take early retirement or face “significant” reforms, layoffs, and an expectation that they be “loyal,” only Sen. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner spoke out, calling the plan likely illegal and a scam.

Funding for most federal agencies expires on March 14 and Kaine was clear that Trump “doesn’t have any authority to do this…” If you accept that offer and resign, he’ll stiff you just like he stiffed contractors.”

Meanwhile, when Trump attempted to unilaterally overturn birthright citizenship — a direct violation of the 14th Amendment — Youngkin and Miyares said nothing.

They were similarly silent when the administration froze federal funds to charitable organizations like Lutheran Services and Commonwealth Catholic Charities, both of which provide services ranging from adoption assistance to food kitchens. Even after 23

Democratic attorneys general sued and convinced two federal judges to halt the freeze, reports surfaced that the administration continued withholding funds, raising the question of whether

Trump’s team deliberately violated a court order? And when 11 of Virginia’s 31 federally qualified health centers — many in the state’s poorest areas — reported funding disruptions, neither Youngkin or Miyares publicly intervened to protect the funding.

Little respect for courts — or American traditions

Trump has never hidden his contempt for the courts or his disdain for the checks and balances that define American democracy. Now, Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have taken up the mantle, with Vance claiming that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” and Musk calling the court rulings against the funding freeze “shady” and “absolutely insane.”

Both seem to ignore Article III of the Constitution and the concept of judicial review — a principle central to American law since the early 1800s that allows federal courts to check executive power. There is a legal way to cut spending — it’s called the congressional appropriations process. As the American Bar Association put it, Trump’s approach “may ap- peal to a few” but is “chaotic,” “wrong,” and “contrary to the rule of law.”

In the coming weeks, expect Trump to flood the zone with more “democracy dilemmas” — manufactured crises designed to expand executive power at the expense of Congress and the courts. And Virginians will again discover whether its leaders fight for them and protect the American system of checks and balances so critical to democratic governance.

The writer is a practicing attorney in Charlottesville, where he formerly served as mayor.