A deeply researched article on the goings on at Paul Weiss, based on lots of things, including the thoughts of the firm’s managing partner, who tries to tell his side of the story.
Here are some questions. (As I said, I’ll give my personal answers in later posts; others may have different answers than mine.)
Is the “agreement” between Trump and Paul Weiss legally enforceable—and does it even purport to be legally enforceable?
What did Paul Weiss actually “agree” to do?
What lies did Trump tell about the “agreement”?
In addition to the points in the agreement, what points are missing? In other words, what hound dogs are not barking in the night?
When the managing partner of Paul Weiss walked out of his meeting with Mango Mussolini, did the said managing partner think, “Man o man, did I just snooker Trump”?
What did Trump actually want from the “agreement,” and did he actually get the thing that he actually wanted?
Did Mr. Karp, Paul Weiss’s managing partner, overlook the forest for the trees?
Big law firms like Paul Weiss compete in three important dimensions. (1) They compete for the business of rich clients with legal issues. (2) They compete for associates (salaried junior lawyers); central to their business model is hiring able associates, paying them a lot of money—i.e., buying their time at wholesale—and then marking up their time to sell at retail, at exorbitant hourly rates. (3) They compete to steal partners with good “books of business” from other firms, and they strive to keep the partners they have from walking out the door. How will the Trump “agreement” impact Paul Weiss’s ability to engage effectively in these three modes of competition?
Paul Weiss probably expects to hire several dozen new associates from the graduating law class of 2025. How will the Trump “agreement” affect the thinking of those potential new hires? How will it affect their incentives to join—or not to join—Paul Weiss? How many of the 2025 law grads who have Paul Weiss offers are actually going to show up at the firm this summer? How many will decide to look for work elsewhere?
Would it be in the collective self-interest of the big firms to take the “Trump factor” out of their competition for corporate business, their competition for able associates, and their competition for partners?
In the next two weeks or so, is Paul Weiss likely to turn around and modify its position?
If a lot of the big firms decide, on reflection, that they would collectively be better off to stand together against Trump, what steps might they take to implement that decision?
In the next two weeks or so, is it likely that many of the big law firms will come to the epiphany that they need—in their own stone cold self-interest—to take collective action to support the rule of law?
Is Perkins Coie likely to win or lose in its lawsuit against Trump—and would one or more amicus briefs likely affect the outcome substantially?
President Lizard Brain seems to think he can head off the lawsuits against him—there are now well over a hundred, and he’s losing most of them—by punishing the lawyers who represent plaintiffs with legal positions adverse to him. But is there in fact there a constitutional right to sue? And does a litigant have a legal right to counsel of their choice? And is it lawful for the government to punish someone for exercising a constitutional right?
Is collective action against Trump by the major law firms a matter of life and death for democracy and the rule of law, or is it more like Kabuki theater?
If rule of law is ultimately to be preserved, what three factors will achieve the preservation?
And apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
With the United States Congress having debased and shamed itself in the face of Trump’s bullying, it’s especially important for other institutions to stand up to the nonsense. Especially the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary. Especially the colleges and universities, and particularly the elite universities. Especially the legal profession, and particularly the American Bar Association and the elite law firms.
As to Covington, as far as I can tell, the matter is hanging fire.
In the case of Paul Weiss, the firm retained as its counsel a Trump-linked law firm and then, shortly thereafter, Paul Weiss’s head had a face-to-face meeting with Mango Mussolini—a meeting that is said to have resulted in a settlement agreement. The latter has been represented, at least by headline writers, as a capitulation by the targeted law firm.
I really don’t think so.
Trump-Approved Pro Bono Work
The purported agreement is described in Mr. Schmidt’s article, cited above. One component is said to entail the firm’s contributing “$40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including ‘the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects,” according to Schmidt’s reporting.
Paul Weiss’s annual revenue is about $2.6 billion, and its profit per partner stands at just over $7.5 million. Even if the agreement implied that the firm would forego $40 million in revenues, that would only be a microscopic part of the firm’s annual earnings.
Paul Weiss is currently charging $1,000 per hour for second-year associates, $1,560 per hour for senior associates, and up to $2,400 per hour for partner time. Depending on which lawyers at Paul Weiss are going to provide the Trump-approved pro bono legal services, it’s not going to take all that long to eat up $40 million.
DEI
Schmidt also reports, “The firm, Mr. Trump said, also agreed to conduct an audit to ensure its hiring practices are merit based ‘and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.’”
Donald Trump’s commerce secretary told Americans to buy stock in Elon Musk’s electric car company, only for shares in Tesla to keep falling.
“I think, if you want to learn something on this show tonight, buy Tesla,” Howard Lutnick told Fox News on Wednesday. “It’s unbelievable that this guy’s stock is this cheap. It’ll never be this cheap again.”
He added: “I mean, who wouldn’t invest in Elon Musk? You gotta be kidding me.”
Regarding Tesla at least, the answer appears to be: lots of people. In the last month, shares have lost a third of their value. After Lutnick spoke, Tesla was down again in pre-market trading on Thursday.
Musk donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump’s re-election campaign and is now slashing government staffing and budgets under the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) – work proving increasingly unpopular and damaging to his businesses. Amid protests that have included vandalism of Teslas and dealerships, Musk has claimed to have done nothing wrong.
On Tuesday, he told Fox: “It turns out when you take away the money people get fraudulently, they get very upset. They basically want to kill me because I’m stopping their fraud, and they want to hurt Tesla because we are stopping this terrible waste and corruption in the government. I guess they are bad people. Bad people do bad things.”
Republicans have attacked Democrats for speaking out against Tesla. Observers have pointed out how the same Republicans have attacked companies for promoting values they do not share, celebrating financial reverses.
Tesla’s problems continue to grow. Last week, JP Morgan said: “We struggle to think of anything analogous in the history of the automotive industry, in which a brand has lost so much value so quickly.”
This week, Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush and a major Tesla backer, said brand damage caused by Musk’s work for Trump “has spread globally over the last few weeks into what we would characterize as a brand tornado crisis moment”.
Lutnick spoke to Jesse Watters, a Fox primetime host and Trump cheerleader.
“It’s just so outrageous,” the former Cantor Fitzgerald CEO said. “You have probably the best entrepreneur, the best technologist, the best leader of any set of companies in America working for America, and you have this sort of weird side of the Democratic party attacking him.”
Lutnick repeated the claim that Musk “rescued” astronauts from the International Space Station via his SpaceX company on Wednesday – yet in fact, Nasa chose to wait for SpaceX to be ready for the mission.
Lutnick urged viewers to “buy Tesla” and expressed disbelief about the shares’ performance.
He continued: “When people understand the things he’s building, the robots he’s building, the technology he’s building, people are going to be dreaming of today and Jesse Watters, thinking, ‘Gosh, I should have bought Elon Musk’s stock’ … Whether today’s the bottom or not, I tell you what, Elon Musk is probably the best person to bet on I’ve ever met. And I think we all know that.”
Lutnick and Watters then engaged in cheerful promotion of $30,000 robots for domestic chores that the commerce secretary said Musk would soon bring to market.
Concern is growing about conflicts of interest involving Musk and whether he is profiting from his government work. This week, as Musk’s Starlink internet service was installed at the White House, senior Democrats called for investigations.
Lutnick told Fox: “Elon Musk is the best entrepreneur and technologist in America, and I bet on him. I wish I was allowed [to buy Tesla stock]. I’m not allowed to buy any stock.”
My strong sense is that Trump’s mental illness has advanced to the stage where his situational awareness is severely, severely diminished. As so many have noted, he does indeed have an authoritarian playbook. But it’s not the playbook of a rational wannabe authoritarian.
Perhaps through confirmation bias, this afternoon I call your attention to Amanda Taub’s essay, which draws a sharp contrast between Trump’s approach and that of the dictators presiding over Hungary and Turkey.
Trump—and his MiniMes like Rep. Hageman of Wyoming—seem to think that their own base are a bunch of masochists.
Trump’s Right About One Thing: Only Trump Can Fix It
An authoritarian playbook based on madness and sadism toward your own supporters is a dog that won’t hunt.
Trump is right. The one person who can defeat Donald Trump—the one person who is going to defeat Donald Trump—is none other than Mango Mussolini himself.
Please excuse a brief point of personal privilege: my undergraduate degree is from Princeton, and, between us, my wife and I have a bunch of degrees from Columbia. (To be more precise, I have one degree from Columbia, and she has so many that I can’t remember them all.)
Well, that’s as may be. But, I am very happy to say, Princeton’s president did not get the memo. I salute him and I honor him.
President Eisengruber of Princeton writes,
The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world.
The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.
The rise of the American research university in the 20th century depended on many factors, including two crucial turning points. The first, at the start of the century, was the development of strong principles of academic freedom that allowed people and ideas to be judged by scholarly standards, not according to the whims or interests of powerful trustees, donors, or political officials. Stanford’s dismissal in 1900 of Edward Ross—an economics professor who had incited controversy with his remarks about, among other topics, Asian immigrants and the labor practices of a railroad run by the university’s founders—catalyzeda movement to protect the rights of faculty members to pursue, publish, and teach controversial ideas. Significant governance reforms took place in the same period, shifting control of professorial appointments from boards of trustees to presidents and faculties.
The second turning point came during World War II, when Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, created the modern partnership between the federal government and the country’s research universities. Bush recognized that by sponsoring research at universities, the United States could lead the world in discoveries and innovations. Over time, American universities became responsible for a large portion of the government’s scientific programs, accepting tens of billions of dollars a year to perform research that would make the country stronger and improve the lives of its citizens.
These two developments had an important connection. The government’s successful collaboration with American universities depended on its respect for academic freedom, which, for decades, presidents and legislators from both political parties largely observed. That freedom attracted the world’s finest scholars and facilitated the unfettered pursuit of knowledge.
Robust federal funding helped make American universities the world’s best, but it also created a huge risk. Universities had acquired a public patron more powerful than any private donor; their budgets became heavily dependent on that single source. If the United States government ever repudiated the principle of academic freedom, it could bully universities by threatening to withdraw funding unless they changed their curricula, research programs, and personnel decisions.
That’s what the Trump administration did this month when it canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia without the legally required due process. The government toldColumbia that the money would be restored only if the university met various conditions, which included placing its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department “under academic receivership” and making unspecified but “comprehensive” reforms to its student admissions and international-recruiting practices.
Recent events have raised legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism at Columbia. The government can respond to those concerns without infringing on academic freedom. The principles of that freedom do not give faculty or students the right to disrupt university operations or violate campus rules. Nor does this freedom allow faculty to violate the scholarly standards of their discipline or compel students into political activity. To the extent that the government has grounds to investigate, it should use the processes required by law to do so, and it should allow Columbia to defend itself. Instead, the government is using grants that apply to Columbia science departments as a cudgel to force changes to a completely unrelated department that the government apparently regards as objectionable.
Nobody should suppose that this will stop at Columbia or with the specific academic programs targeted by the government’s letter. Precisely because great research universities are centers of independent, creative thought, they generate arguments and ideas that challenge political power across fields as varied as international relations, biology, economics, and history. If government officials think that stifling such criticism is politically acceptable and legally permissible, some people in authority will inevitably yield to the temptation to do so.
Nor should those who might revile the views expressed by some Columbia faculty members, or who dislike the university’s admission policies, take any comfort from this assault on academic freedom. Universities are now under attack from the right; in the future, left-leaning politicians may demand that universities do their bidding. Under such circumstances, the safest appointments may be the blandest ones—and brilliant scholars, those whom the world most needs, are rarely bland.
The attack on Columbia is a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research. Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.
The universities cannot, however, prevail alone. Strong, independent academic institutions produce new technologies and insights that catalyze economic growth, save lives, improve well-being, and overcome injustices. Every citizen and officeholder who cares about the strength of our country must also care about free speech, self-governing thought, and the untrammeled quest for knowledge. They, too, should demand a stop to the government’s unwarranted intrusion on academic freedom at Columbia.
Well, yeah. But I think there are actually two sides to this coin.
Two Sides to the Coin: Who Will or Won’t Obey Which Orders?
Well may we ask, how do the courts enforce their orders when Trump tells his minions to violate the law?
But, by like token, when Trump tells his team to violate the law, how many of them will actually do it?
Let’s wargame this out.
Some on the Trump team are lawyers—actual members of the bar. Lawyers who engage in contempt of court—not to mention other violations like subornation of perjury or obstruction of justice—face fines, imprisonment, and disciplinary actions up to and including disbarment.
If you are a lawyer, there will probably come a time when a client will pressure you to violate the law or demand that you violate the law. You had bloody well not do it. It’s the wrong thing to do. But even if you don’t give a tinker’s damn about right or wrong, it’s still a really bad idea to violate the law on a client’s behalf.
Now, to push our little thought experiment to the next step: Maybe you are a member of the bar who has drunk deeply of the MAGA Kool-Aid. Maybe you think that a Trump dictatorship would be just fine and dandy. But are you SURE that the leap toward dictatorship is actually going to work?
Because, friend, if Trump doesn’t pull off his dictatorship, then you are going to be left up that famous tributary without a means of locomotion.
If you are a lawyer, you will be subject to disbarment, and will need to find another line of work—animal husbandry, maybe?
If you are not a lawyer, you can’t be disbarred—you were never “barred” in the first place—but there are plenty of other adverse consequences that could ensue.
In short, Conway is surely right as far as he goes: Just because the Supreme Court says “Jump,” that doesn’t mean that everyone in the land will ask “How high, sirs?”
But the same thing goes if and when Trump says “Jump—into defiance of the rule of law!” Lots of people will jump. But how many will not jump?
And Then There are the Knock-on Effects …
As Conway says, when push comes to shove, there will be a lot of folks out in the streets. But it won’t only be folks in the streets. Read the damn WSJ Editorial Board, for example: If the rule of law disappears and it becomes a jungle out there, how the hell can big business enforce its contracts—or have enough certainty to invest and thrive?
What will Trump do when every Fortune 500 CEO comes for him?
… At a Time When There is Massive Pain Throughout Society
If you’re Mango Mussolini and you want to go full authoritarian, maybe you don’t want to pick a time when government breakdowns are hurting your peeps and when trade wars are causing big pain.
Not a Rosy Scenario—But a Damn Uncertain Scenario
No, my name is not Rosy Scenario, and of course I don’t know how all of this is going to turn out. But I do know, to a high level of confidence, that there are a whole lot of moving parts—and a lot of those moving parts may not move in Trump’s direction.
Derek Thompson is the co-author, along with Ezra Klein, of the new book Abundance. I strongly recommend the whole article. If you don’t subscribe to The Atlantic, then you really should.
Here are some highlights:
Donald Trump has promised a “golden age of America.” But for all his bluster about being the champion of an American century, Trump’s actual policies point to something different: not an expansive vision of the future, but a shrunken vision of the present.
The MAGA movement might try to justify its wrecking-ball style by arguing that its extreme approach is commensurate with the level of anger that voters feel about the status quo. But just because Trump is a product of American rage does not mean he is a solution to it.
In housing, for example, Americans have every right to be furious. Home construction has lagged behind our national needs for decades. Today, the median age of first-time homebuyers has surged to a record high of 38. Large declines in young homeownershiphave likely prevented many young people from dating, marrying, and starting a family. Although Trump was swept into office on a wave of economic frustration, his initial foray into economic policy has done little to help the situation. As the National Association of Home Builders pointed out in an alarmed March 7 memo, his persistent threat of tariffs on Mexico and Canada could drive up the cost of crucial materials, such as softwood lumber and drywall gypsum, which are “largely sourced from Canada and Mexico, respectively.” Meanwhile, Trump’s anti-immigrant policies foretell new labor shortages in the construction industry, where roughly 25 percent or more workers are foreign-born.
This is where Democrats should be able to stand up and show that they have a winning response to the less-is-less politics from the right. But in many places run by Democrats, the solution on offer is another variety of scarcity. Blue cities are laden with rules and litigation procedures that block new housing and transit construction. As my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted, in California cities where the share of progressives votes goes up by 10 points, the number of housing permits issued declines by 30 percent. Where the supply of homes is constricted, housing prices soar, and homelessness rises. As of 2023, the five states with the highest rates of homelessness were New York, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington—all run by Democrats.
As the cost of living rises in blue states, tens of thousands of families are leaving them. But the left isn’t just losing people. It’s losing an argument. It has become a coalition of Kindness Is Everything signs in front yards zoned for single-family homes. Liberals say they want to save the planet from climate change, but in practice, many liberal areas have shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants and protested solar-power projects, leaving it to red states such as Texas to lead the nation in renewable-energy generation. Democrats cannot afford to become the party of language over outcomes, of ever more lawn signs and ever fewer working-class families.
If Trump’s opponents are going to win at the polls, they will need to construct a new political movement, one that aims for abundance instead of scarcity. Such a movement would combine the progressive virtue of care for the working class and a traditionally conservative celebration of national greatness, while taking a page from the libertarian obsession with eliminating harmful regulations to make the most important markets work better. It would braid a negative critique of Trump’s attack on the government with a positive vision of actual good governance in America—while providing a rigorous focus on removing the bottlenecks that stand in the way.
Abundance begins with specific goals for America’s future. Imagine much more housing where it’s most in demand. An economy powered by plentiful clean energy. A revitalized national science policy prioritizing high-risk discoveries that extend lives and improve health. And a national invention agenda that seeks to pull forward technologies in transportation, medicine, energy, and beyond that would improve people’s lives. …
I can imagine somebody opposed to the MAGA movement reading all of this and thinking: Why, at a time when Trump presents such a clear threat to the American project, is it appropriate to focus such criticism on the Democratic side?
First, to make the argument for a liberal alternative to Trumpism, Democrats have to show Americans that voting for liberals actually works. …
Second, Americans are furious about the status quo—the youngest voters are “more jaded than ever about the state of American leadership,” according to the Harvard Political Review—and liberals need a new style of politics for the age of anti-establishment anger. The right’s answer to rage is chaos in search of an agenda. MAGA acts like a drunk toddler with a chain saw, carelessly slashing through state programs with a high risk of self-harm. But Democrats should not allow the forces of negative polarization to turn them into the party that reflexively defends the status quo at every turn, even when it means refusing to reform institutions that have lost the public’s trust. Quite the opposite: Abundance should be a movement of proud, active, and even obsessive institutional renewal.
Consider U.S. science policy, an area that is under attack from the right at this moment. As the centerpiece of U.S. biomedical funding, the National Institutes of Health has accomplished extraordinary things; you will have a hard time finding many scientific breakthroughs in the past 50 years—in heart disease, genetics, epidemiology—that were not irrigated by its funding.
But many of the same factors that have infamously plagued our housing and energy markets—paperwork, bureaucratic drift, entrenched incumbent interests—have become fixtures in American science. It is practically a cliché among researchers that the NIH privileges incremental science over the sort of high-risk, high-reward investigations that would likely uncover the most important new truths. Surveys indicate that the typical U.S. researcher spends up to 40 percent of their time preparing grant proposals and filling out paperwork rather than actually conducting science. As John Doench, the director of research and development in functional genomics at the Broad Institute, told me: “Folks need to understand how broken the system is.” …
Today, we seem to be in a rare period in American history, when the decline of one political order makes space for another. This crackup was decades in the making. It started with the Great Recession, which shattered a broad belief in free and unregulated markets. It continued throughout the 2010s, as slow economic recovery fueled public resentment of inequality, and an affordability crisis gathered steam. In 2020, the pandemic obliterated many Americans’ trust in government, or what was left of it. And from 2021 to 2024, inflation brought national attention to the interlocking crises of scarcity, supply, and unaffordability. For years, the boundaries of American politics had felt fixed, even settled. But now they are falling.
“For a political order to triumph, it must have a narrative, a story it tells about the good life,” Gerstle told me. Today’s politics are suffused with pessimism about government because “a way of living sold to us as good and achievable is no longer good, or no longer achievable.” In 2016, the rise of Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right revealed how many Americans had stopped believing that the life they had been promised was achievable. What both the socialist left and the populist-authoritarian right understood was that the story that had been told by the establishments of both parties, the story that had kept their movements consigned to the margins, had come to its end.
Political movements succeed when they build a vision of the future that is imbued with the virtues of the past. Franklin D. Roosevelt pitched his expansive view of government as a sentinel for American freedoms: of speech, of worship, from want, from fear. Decades later, Ronald Reagan recast government as freedom’s nemesis rather than its protector. Abundance, too, is about redefining freedom for our own time. It is about the freedom to build in an age of blocking; the freedom to move and live where you want in an age of a stuck working class; the freedom from curable diseases that come from scientific breakthroughs. Trump has defined his second term by demolition and deprivation. America can instead choose abundance.
Notice, please, that the Big Bad Wolf has only two ways of getting what he wants. The first is that he huffs and he puffs and he blows things down.
Huffing and puffing works fine on the First Little Pig, who built his house from straw—and even on the Second Little Pig, who chose wood as his building material. But huffing and puffing has no effect on the Third Little Pig, who used bricks to build his house.
The Big Bad Wolf’s second and last technique is telling lies. We don’t know whether the lies would have worked on the first two pigs, because they succumbed to the huffing and puffing—and got eaten—even before the Wolf had to resort to mendacity.
As to the Third Little Pig, not only does he build a brick house—and thus survive all the huffing and puffing—but he also responds to the Wolf’s bullshit with effective counterstrategy. And, so, at the end of the day, it’s the Big Bad Wolf who gets eaten, not the Third Little Pig.
One might say that the Third Little Pig knows his Sunzi:
Know yourself.
Know the enemy.
Hundred battles.
No peril.
As I said, we know who the Big Bad Wolf stands for.
The First Little Pig stands for the Republican members of the House and Senate. They are afraid of their constituents. Many of them are unintelligent and gullible. The others, the ones who understand what’s going on, do not have the character and moral courage to do their jobs. As the poet said, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
And so, the house made of straw stands for our first branch of government, the United States Congress.
The Second Little Pig and his house of wood stand for those parts of our institutions that are made of somewhat sterner stuff than the house of straw, but that still succumb to the huffing and puffing. Think of Jeff Bezos as the Second Little Pig and the Washington Post as the wooden house.
The Third Little Pig and his brick house stand for those of us who’re going to survive this shitstorm. We go into battle armed with skill, flexibility, and moral conviction. In the end, it will be the Big, Bad Wolf who winds up in the pot. Not us.
Facing MAGA 