Editors’ Blog

I wanted to take a moment to set out some thoughts about the outer bounds of constitutional government in the United States, just where and at what point the American Republic might come apart or temporarily unhinged and how, potentially, to navigate such a situation.

For starters, where does the break point come? It seems clear to me that Trump plans to coerce the states into operating under his direct control by cutting off their flows of federal money from the federal government. We have already seen this with private institutions like Columbia University and other institutions in the form of NIH and other grants. Maine is already a focus because of the verbal confrontation between the state’s Gov. Janet Mills (D) and Trump back in late February.

They’re happening: “empty chair” town halls in Republican districts pretty much all over the place. This weekend we’ve got reports in Columbus, Ohio, for Sens. Moreno and Husted, on Maryland’s eastern shore, where Rep. Jamie Raskin (D) had to show up in place of Rep. Andy Harris (R), in Little Rock for Rep. French Hill, Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. John Boozman, and in Lexington for Rep. Andy Barr. In Billings, nearly 1,000 showed up for no-shows Sen. Daines, Sen. Sheehy and Rep. Downing, and about 300 came for Daines, Sheehy and Rep. Zinke in Missoula. People turned out in Fairbanks, Juneau, Anchorage and other towns in Alaska for no-shows Rep. Begich and Sen. Sullivan. Another big turnout for no-show Rep. Darrell Issa outside San Diego. More “empty chair” town halls in Indiana, with no-shows from Sen. Banks, Sen. Young and Rep. Stutzman. (Banks sent donuts.)

The Post reports today that the IRS’ internal projections estimate that the DOGE-driven disruptions to the IRS since the inauguration are on track to have reduced tax receipts by more than $500 billion by April 15th. This, to be clear, is not a final tally. It’s not April 15th yet. It’s a projection based on historical data, the number of people who’ve filed, paid owed amounts of tax, etc. It’s worth taking a moment to put this number into some context in case half a trillion dollars doesn’t do it for you. Non-defense discretionary spending is the cost to fund the U.S. government once you take out mandatory spending (mostly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and the cost of the U.S. military. For 2023 that number was $917 billion. So that’s most of the stuff we think of as the government, apart from those payment programs and the military. In other words, in about eight weeks DOGE managed to lose the U.S. government — more or less light on fire — more than half of what goes to all non-defense discretionary spending.

Meanwhile we have Musk/DOGE blowback town halls in Iowa (with Chuck Grassley) courtesy of TPM Reader BC; another from Utah where two Republicans at least had the integrity to hold a town hall, courtesy of TPM Reader AF; and finally Wyoming and Rep. Hageman, Liz Cheney’s successor, in Laramie, courtesy of TPM Reader JW.

As Hageman told the 500 person crowd: “You guys are going to have a heart attack if you don’t calm down. I’m sorry, you’re hysterical.” 

Fridays are becoming bloodbath day in the federal workforce. In the same way that bad news stories used to be held for Friday late afternoon, that’s when we now hear about a lot of these firings. Midafternoon, I heard that the Department of Homeland Security had essentially abolished all its international civil rights and detention abuse agencies. They abolished the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman and the Office of the CIS Ombudsman. In other words, basically everyone in the department charged with providing some oversight of the treatment of people by the department’s various policing agencies or when in detention is gone. They’re all gone. The only exception is the department Inspector General. But an IG really has a much broader brief. In any case, all terminated immediately, out of the blue. Those are all, I believe, statutory offices. I know the Office of Civil Rights is. So you really can’t abolish those. Except when you do. So that’s where we are.

So, the DOGE-appointed acting head of the Social Security Administration is threatening to shut the agency down, quite literally, in response to a judge’s order that DOGErs can’t look at the confidential data any more. Really.

So I had been led to believe, mostly by news reports but perhaps also by inertia, that that big amicus brief that some Big Law law firms had been trying to put together had fizzled. That seemed even more clear when news came out yesterday that Paul, Weiss had agreed to undergo a self-criticism session with President Trump and commit $40 million of pro bono work to Making American Great Again. But I’m told that effort is very much still underway. I’m not making any promises. I have no great insight or visibility into the effort. But I’ve been told by what I believe are knowledgable sources that that’s still very much underway and not in a slowly dying on the vine kind of way. So we’ll see.

From TPM Reader BM …

I was shocked that Paul Weiss, of all firms, capitulated, but not surprised.

When Trump singled out Perkins Coie, there was an effort to get all of the largest law firms to file an amicus brief and stand together with Perkins. As you’ve seen, that effort failed. Apparently, most firms wouldn’t join the brief, out of fear. Without collective action, they get picked off one by one.

I was really disappointed yesterday that the president of Princeton’s article in The Atlantic was not co-signed by all of the presidents of the major research universities. If they don’t stand together to oppose the illegal demands of the Administration, they will all hang separately.

Thanks for your reporting.

Pretty surreal moment today. Paul, Weiss is one of three firms targeted in new Trump executive orders. The firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, has reached an agreement with President Trump that essentially allows the White House to dictate its internal personnel policies as well as what cases it agrees to take on. Most notably it obligates the firm to provide $40 million of pro bono legal services to pro-Trump causes including “the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.” Note that “other mutually agreed projects.” So this is essentially a pro-bono legal defense fund at President Trump’s personal disposal. It appears this “agreement” is between Karp and the President personally.

At this point I wouldn’t imagine that many potential clients will be choosing Paul, Weiss to sue the administration. But even on a more general standard of zealous representation, if you were involved in litigation antagonistic to the White House and represented by Paul, Weiss, is there any possible way you could feel confident in the integrity of your defense or its lawful loyalty to your interests?