Tag Archives: Trump

The Rubber Is Meeting The Road

Paul Weiss, an enormous and influential law firm, and Columbia University, long considered a top-rank institution of higher education, have bent their knees to the bully in the White House. They didn’t offer even token resistance. (Many in the legal community now mockingly refer to the law firm as “Paul Wuss.”)

Their cowardice threatens all Americans.

A recent essay in The Contrarian  quoted Rachel Cohen, a young lawyer who organized a letter of protest against Donald Trump’s unconscionable attacks on lawyers and law firms, and who subsequently resigned from her job at Skadden Arps, which has evidently also bent the knee. (She’s not alone; see The Telegraph, Junior lawyers revolt after bosses bow to Trump ‘intimidation’.)

“Big law has a huge collective action problem,” she said. “[I]t’s because we are so risk averse.”

As the Contrarian notes,

In a real sense, the collective action problem—no one stands up to the MAGA onslaught because no one else is doing it—now permeates much of civil society (including the press, law firms, and universities). Tech barons feel compelled to cough up $1M for Trump’s inauguration because they don’t want to risk being left off the podium. Paul Weiss capitulates for fear other firms will do the same. Faced with oppressive, powerful forces, it is much easier to go along to get along, keep your head down, and not call attention to oneself. (Hence, the entire Republican Party capitulating to Trump.)

At a time when too many Americans measure their worth by comparisons to others’ wealth, status, and influence, the fear of losing something–access to a politician, research grants, social status, or blue ribbon clients–can become paralyzing. “It is called a collective action problem for a reason—it is hard to break the passivity cycle. But that does not mean it is impossible.

The essay suggests changing the incentives. Law firms bending the knee can be ostracized by associates; universities like Columbia should be shunned by students, faculty, and alumni who understand the degree to which compliance undermines intellectual integrity. When institutions face a downside–shaming– for doing the wrong thing, they might be more inclined to stand by their principles.

Meanwhile, other universities can eschew the ground of least resistance. They can pledge to reject attacks on academic freedom. If and when even one prestigious university lays down such a marker, it will cement its own status as a prominent academic institution that leads with integrity. (Also, one or more schools can offer Columbia students the opportunity to transfer, or could agree to hire researchers whose grants were cut. The loss of prestige, students, and top-notch faculty can be a disincentive to cave.)

I would note that incentivising moral/legal behavior is only necessary for institutions lacking the integrity to act on their purported principles without outside pressure.

The Association of American Law Schools has published a blistering letter denouncing Trump’s unprecedented attacks on legal and educational institutions.

Taken together these actions seek to chill criticism, silence those who may seek to hold the executive branch accountable and intimidate lawyers…. The independence of our universities and judiciary, and the ability of lawyers to fully represent their clients, are at the core of our democracy and have long been supported by all Americans, regardless of political party.

The letter called for collective efforts to push back against the Trump bullies, including coordination with alumni, judges, local bar associations, and other schools, and for public and private demonstrations of support for those Trump targets.

As a former lawyer and academic, I found the immediate, craven surrender of Paul Weiss and Columbia incredibly depressing.  A law firm unwilling to defend the rule of law has shamed itself; a University (especially one with an ample endowment, like Columbia) that sells its integrity for a grant betrays the central purpose of academia.

If I were in the market for legal services, I would not employ a law firm that has shown itself unwilling to defend itself. If I was once again seeking an academic position, I would avoid any university unwilling to defend academic freedom.

Several law firms attacked by Trump (Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, and most recently, Wilmer Hale) have refused to fold, unlike Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps. At this juncture, I was able to find only five universities that have publicly spoken out against Trump’s vendetta. The president of Wesleyan, Michael Roth, was first and loudest; he’s been joined by presidents of Mount Holyoke, Delta College in Michigan, Trinity Community College in Washington DC, and Princeton.

Their ranks must increase. The rubber has hit the road.

Comments

What The Fire Hose Obscures…

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of what has aptly been called the “firehose” of unconstitutional, illegal and profoundly stupid actions being taken by Trump and DOGE is the public’s corresponding inability to understand it all–to keep track of the assaults on the multiple responsibilities of government, and to recognize the immensity of the harms being done.

It’s all too easy to focus on the pettiness and bigotries–the erasures of the contributions of Blacks and women from official websites, the withdrawal of Secret Service protections from those on Trump’s extensive “enemies” list, the threats to law firms that represent people on that list…etc. etc. But while we are appalled by the lack of backbone being demonstrated by many of those targets (and all of the Republicans in Congress), we are missing less reported actions that are wreaking incalculable harms.

Last Sunday, the New York Times reported on one of those actions.

In a climate-controlled bunker in an unremarkable building in rural Aberdeen, Idaho, there are shelves upon shelves of meticulously labeled boxes of seed. This vault is home to many of the United States’ more than 62,000 genetically unique lines of wheat, collected over the past 127 years from around the world.

Though dormant, these seeds are alive. But unless they are continually cared for and periodically replanted, the lines will die, along with the millenniums of evolutionary history that they embody.

Since its establishment in 1898, the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Plant Germplasm System and the scientists who support it have systematically gathered and maintained the agricultural plant species that undergird our food system in vast collections such as the one in Aberdeen. The collections represent a towering achievement of foresight that food security depends on the availability of diverse plant genetic resources.

In mid-February, Trump administration officials at what has been labeled the Department of Government Efficiency fired some of the highly trained people who do this work. A court order has reinstated them, but it’s unclear when they will be allowed to resume their work. In the meantime, uncertainty around additional staffing and budget cuts, as well as the future of the collections themselves, reigns.

As the article notes, America’s food system relies on our ability to respond to the next plant disease or other emergent threat, and this little-known agency is essential to our preparedness. Across 22 stations maintained nationwide, 300 scientists maintain more than 600,000 genetic lines of more than 200 crop species.

The collections of some crops, like wheat, are in the form of seeds. But others, like apples (2,664 lines), must be maintained as living plants in the open field. The scientists who care for them must follow strict requirements for sustaining genetic purity so they can provide healthy viable seeds or plants to the tens of thousands of researchers and others who request them each year.

The article compares this activity to a survivalist cache. It represents a safeguard against all future challenges to growing the food we need. (You’d think a man with 13 children might care about the future of those children, if not the rest of the human race, but apparently not.)

Moving fast and breaking things may work in some sectors. But the disruptions underway threaten irreversible losses of crop genetic diversity. Such losses directly undermine the United States’ ability to ensure continued food security and dietary diversity amid challenges to our agricultural systems.

The word “irreversible” is chilling–and therein lies the challenge we face.

It isn’t just the fact that Americans have installed a collection of clowns and buffoons–in both the Oval Office and Congress– who lack any ability to govern, or even understand the purpose of government.  It isn’t their ham-handed efforts to erase evidence of diversity–much of which will be countered by  Internet sources. It isn’t even the mean-spiritedness of their attacks on disfavored “Others” (as one participant at a Town Hall put it, “what kind of people are only happy when they are hurting someone else?”). It’s the immense and irreversible damage that is being done, and the fact that the assaults are so widespread that we can’t keep track of them.

We can recover from the economic damage being done, although not without considerable pain as prices increase, tourism vanishes, and working Americans have fewer jobs and less disposable income. We will mourn the unnecessary deaths from vaccine misinformation, termination of medical research and drastic cuts to Medicaid, but the nation will survive those losses.

It’s the irreversible damage being done–to our international alliances, to food safety, to America’s promise of liberty and civi equality, and to who knows what else–that will forever mark this horrible juncture in our national story.

Comments

Red State Blues

I don’t know indiana State Representative Chis Campbell, and I had to look up her district (26) but everyone in Indiana ought to understand the contents of her recent newsletter, detailing the losses that Indiana will sustain as a result of the carnage being wreaked by the Trump/Musk administration.

Deep-Red Indiana, where citizens love to hate the federal government, is the state third-most reliant on federal funding. We are behind only Louisiana and Mississippi (a statistic that gives credence to the frequent accusation that Indiana’s terrible legislature wants to turn Indiana into the Mississippi of the north).

According to Representative Campbell, nearly 44% of Indiana’s budget comes from federal agencies and grants.

So what are a few of the biggest impacts Trump’s plans will have on Hoosiers? Rep. Campbell lists them.

First, there’s the projected impact of Trump’s insane tariffs. The Conversation calculates that Indiana will be the third most impacted by those tariffs, losing $4.82 billion (a 1.12% decrease in our GDP), primarily in the auto, manufacturing, and agriculture industries. “The auto industry, one of Indiana’s biggest economic sectors, is expected to lose $28.2 billion because of these tariffs.”  It is projected that a Hoosier family of four will spend an extra $2,836 each year, “equivalent to half a year’s worth of utility payments.”

If Trump is successful in ridding us of the much-maligned Department of Education, Indiana will lose $1.8 billion we now get for K-12 and higher education.

The Division of Family Resources (DFR), which primarily funds schools with a high number of low-income students or students in need of special education, receives a little under $2 billion from the federal government. Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) receives approximately $670,000 in Title III funding. These dollars help students who are learning English as a second language, and they benefit approximately 6,400 students in the IPS system. Additionally, students with disabilities rely on the DOE to enforce the right to an individualized education plan.

Then there’s Medicaid.

Congressional Republicans have proposed $880 billion in federal cuts, which would be impossible to achieve without cutting Medicaid or Medicare. Since roughly 70% of Indiana’s funding for Medicaid comes from the national government, Indiana could be in a serious bind. It’s estimated that close to 484,000 Hoosiers would lose their health care coverage if these federal cuts are passed and Indiana fails to cover the costs.

As Representative Campbell notes, the assault on healthcare isn’t confined to Medicaid. Cuts to the NIH–the National Institutes of Health–will dramatically affect Indiana University and Purdue University, both of which rely heavily on federal funding to conduct on-campus medical research.

Cuts to HUD will worsen Indiana’s challenging housing market. We are already one of the most difficult states in which to rent  (Fort Wayne is ranked the third least renter-friendly city in the U.S.). And since HUD enforces fair housing laws, Trump’s cuts to the agency will join his other efforts to revive Jim Crow.

If Trump was capable of rational decision-making, he would re-think his wildly unconstitutional Executive Orders and his support for Musk’s equally unconstitutional chain-saw “efficiencies,” because the data shows that the mayhem is hitting Red states like Indiana far harder than it is affecting Blue states.

It is unlikely that Trump understands that differential impact, or recognizes the European Union’s very deliberate effort to target its responses to his tariffs to the states inhabited by his supporters.  As the linked article from Fortune reports:

The EU measures will cover goods from the United States worth some 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will be hit, as they were during President Donald Trump’s first term.

The EU duties aim for pressure points in the U.S. while minimizing additional damage to Europe. The tariffs — taxes on imports — primarily target Republican-held states, hitting soybeans in House speaker Mike Johnson’s Louisiana, but also beef and poultry in Kansas and Nebraska. Produce in Alabama, Georgia and Virginia is also on the list.

Unfortunately those of us in Red states who aren’t members of the MAGA cult will suffer along with everyone else. And of course, residents of Blue states won’t escape the effects of the combined madness (Trump, Musk) and cowardice (Republicans in Congress).

As the consequences become increasingly impossible to ignore, the resistance will grow. It is already gathering speed: over 11,000 people turned out to hear Bernie Sanders and AOC in bright-Red Greeley, Colorado, and an amazing 34,000 turned out in Denver.

Even in Red Indiana, Town Halls are packed with Americans who aren’t going down without a fight. And as the cuts to Social Security staffs make access difficult-to-impossible, those crowds are exploding.

Comments

Unintended Consequences?

One of the dangers of even thoughtful policymaking is the possibility of unintended consequences; as I used to tell my students, even the best-intended legislative efforts can create unforeseen “spinoffs” that range from unfortunate to truly damaging. That’s why careful attention to policy details, consultation with people having expertise on the subject, and thorough review of available evidence are all so important.

So what happens when people in positions of authority are incapable of thoughtful policymaking and dismissive of evidence and expertise? We are about to face the consequences of policymaking by ignorant egomaniacs, and Paul Krugman has identified some of the most obvious.

Krugman notes that the new PM of Canada has ordered a review of that country’s plan to buy a substantial number of U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, joining European nations that are similarly reconsidering their dependence on U.S. weapons.

This turn away from military dependence on the U.S. is understandable. America is no longer a reliable ally to the world’s democracies; indeed, between Trump’s turn toward Putin and his talk of annexing Canada and Greenland, we don’t look like an ally at all. Rumors that U.S. jets have a “kill switch” that would allow Trump to disable them at will are probably false, but sophisticated military equipment requires a lot of technical support, so you don’t want to buy it from a country you don’t trust.

He then considered several other emerging responses to the chaos being caused by our mad kings, pointing out that a nation “that can’t be trusted to honor agreements or follow the rule of law has to have monetary as well as political and diplomatic consequences.”

Several of those monetary consequences will be very damaging. Krugman says he’s been exploring the available data, and “U.S. exposure to foreign revulsion looks quite large.”

Military hardware isn’t the only export likely to suffer from our new rogue nation status. Our trade deficit in goods is partly offset by a surplus in services trade, but several of our major service exports will definitely be hurt by America’s turn to the dark side.

One of these is education. Many foreigners come to America to study, attracted by the quality of our colleges and universities. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, they spent more than $50 billion. But if you were a foreigner considering study in the U.S. next year, wouldn’t you be worried that you might find yourself arrested and deported for expressing what the current administration considers anti-American views? I would. So we can expect a hit to higher education, which, although we rarely think of it this way, is a major U.S. export.

Personal travel — basically tourism — was even bigger, more than $100 billion. But you can be sure that we’ll be seeing a lot fewer Canadians this year and next. And it won’t just be Canadians reconsidering their plans.

Media is already reporting cratering European tourism.

Krugman admits that he’s much more worried about Trump’s threat to our democracy than his bad economic policies. He also notes that– even in purely economic terms–the self-inflicted damage from tariffs and deportations is likely to outweigh the costs caused by other countries’ loss of trust in the United States. That said, those costs are real.

One way to think about this is to say that Trump is doing to America what Elon Musk is doing to Tesla, destroying a valuable brand through erratic behavior and repulsive ideology. Did I mention that Tesla sales in Europe appear to be cratering?

True, there are differences between a private business and a nation-state. I don’t think people visiting Tesla showrooms are subject to random arrest, or that Musk will kill your car if you say something he doesn’t like (although to be honest I’m not entirely sure on either count, especially since Musk seems to be running much of the government.) On the other hand, Tesla depends a lot more on buyer goodwill than the United States as a whole does.

Still, Trump’s belief that America holds all the cards, that the rest of the world needs access to our markets but we don’t need them, is all wrong. We are rapidly losing the world’s trust, and part of the cost will be financial.

I think it’s unlikely that either of our mad megalomaniacs considers the probable or improbable consequences of their actions. The hard core of MAGA cultists will refuse to acknowledge even the outcomes that negatively affect them (and the data suggests that Red states will likely bear the brunt).

We can only hope that a sufficient number of “softer” Trump supporters will realize that the costs of voting their racism have become too high.

Comments

Doonesbury Understands What MAGA Doesn’t…

I tried to reproduce last Sunday’s Doonesbury cartoon in lieu of today’s post, but my digital skills weren’t up to the task, so I will have to describe and discuss it instead.

The comic strip’s radio personality, Mark, gets a call from Al Gore. The conversation focuses on what Mark says was Gore’s “jam”–government efficiency. Gore explains that it had indeed been his “job one” as Vice President, and that in the space of seven years that effort had reduced the federal workforce by 426,000 workers, consolidated 800 agencies and eliminated 640,000 pages of rules.

When Mark says “Wait. Why didn’t I know any of that,” Gore responds “You didn’t notice because the process was carefully planned and responsibly executed. It never disrupted essential public services. Compare that to now.”

As I read that comic strip, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. (Okay, I did both.)

In just a few panels, Gary Trudeau made an essential point: if your intent was really to improve service delivery, to root out fraud and waste (and in most bureaucracies, very much including government, waste is a far more prevalent problem than intentional fraud), you would go about that task carefully. Responsibly. You wouldn’t approach it with what Paul Krugman has aptly called a group of Dunning-Kruger interns and a meat-ax.

You would take the time to determine what each agency did, and take care not to lose valuable institutional knowledge with your layoffs and firings–especially when that knowledge was essential to the management of things like atomic weaponry. You would learn the vagaries of government’s (frequently antiquated) digital systems, and avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions, avoiding ludicrous and easily debunked assertions that millions of dead Americans are receiving Social Security checks.

It has become abundantly clear that Musk’s manic exhibit with a chain-saw was a perfect representation of his real motive: to destroy the federal government–what the Rightwing crazies call their war against “the administrative state.”

I think there are two distinct reasons for pursuing that destruction, although they are not mutually exclusive. (Musk rather obviously falls into both categories.)

One motivation for the chain-saw approach is the naive and increasingly divorced from reality belief that we don’t really need government, except perhaps to maintain law and order. All those regulations that–among other things– keep your groceries safe to eat, prevent your bank from ripping you off and keep your airplane from crashing, and all those silly programs that do things like feed schoolchildren and support cancer research–and especially all those intrusive rules that prevent you from discriminating against people who have different skin colors, genders or religions–all of that activity is an unnecessary intrusion on your individual rights.

Once Musk bought Twitter and turned it into the cesspool of bigotry and ignorance that is now called X, his belief that government should operate minimally– and only for the benefit of rich White men– became clear. (As if we’d failed to notice..)

The second motivation is greed. We’ve seen the billionaires “bend the knee” to an administration that is hell-bent on destroying the economic system that facilitated their acquisition of wealth, evidently in the belief that when markets crash and they are free of regulations and that pesky rule of law, they will be in a position to buy low. (Their accompanying belief that they will be able to sell high after a time, however, is fatally flawed–stock values are unlikely to rebound in the absence of a stable democratic society, just as America’s reputation as a reliable ally is unlikely to recover in our lifetimes, if ever.)

Sometimes, uncomfortable truths are better conveyed by humor than by the efforts of would-be pundits writing blogs like this one. People of a certain age still quote a very famous Pogo strip for an essential insight: We have met the enemy and he is us.

The question we are now facing is: how many of us are willing to confront that particular insight? How many of us are willing to accept the unavoidable inefficiencies and annoyances that come with a government able to serve us all–and to fight for its preservation?

I guess we’ll find out…..

Comments