We are now cranking up another edition of the “will he or won’t he?” Trump song and dance, this time about firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Trump manages to add an additional pungency to these dramas by trying to fire the guy who is actually his own Fed Chair. Biden renominated Powell. But Trump actually gave him the job. Axios just pushed a newsletter update that ran through this drama, first reporting the events of the day and then adding this: “What we’re watching: Federal law and Supreme Court precedent say presidents cannot fire the Fed chair over a policy disagreement.” It then goes on from there. But that’s actually the end of the story. The other possibilities are illegal.

It is critical to remember these things. I’ve often used the metaphor of a pilot’s flight instruments. Under flight rules, you’re taught only to follow the instruments. Your body and senses may be telling you you’re right-side up but actually you’re upside down. They may be telling you you’re going up but you’re actually going down. Your instruments are reality; your body and sensations are lying to you.

Crain’s Chicago has a piece on the law firm deals. It focuses on Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis. The conclusion is the same. There’s no written document. It’s only the bullet-pointed text they shared internally and which Trump posted on Truth Social. When I wrote about this yesterday I realized that there was something that seems so clear that I don’t seem to have said it explicitly enough. So let’s do that: the real goal here is to gain leverage over the firms – regardless of what these notional agreements say – and stop them from taking cases that are in any way unhelpful to Trump, including but not limited to lawsuits fighting his various illegal actions. But the most interesting new information I learned yesterday I found in this article in The Wall Street Journal, which explains that the entire negotiation process is being lead by Trump lawyer and fixer Boris Epshteyn.

Last week I asked some questions about the law firm “agreements” with Donald Trump that seem very unclear from the available news coverage. Namely, where are the agreements? Are they formal agreements committed to writing? Who are the parties? Are they signed?

Sources from the Big Law firms who inked (maybe?) new agreements last week gave me a lot more visibility into what these deals are about. So I want to share that with you.

First, I want to renew my request to lawyers at the big firms to reach out and share information. I can not only protect your confidentiality, I can keep your firm anonymous as well. See more in the addenda at the end of this post.

Now let’s get down to business. Let’s start with what and where are the agreements?

I’ve heard from a number of you in response to my posts about the fate of universities in the Trump era. I’ve published a couple of these responses below and I’ll post more. They are fascinating and illuminating replies. Most are generally supportive. A few are in the category of “Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about.” But there are a number which I would put in the category of, “I agree. The universities have to fight. But I’m not sure you get how big a bloodbath we’re talking about.”

I wanted to expand on those earlier posts. And much of this will be meant to address that last category of responses.

I haven’t been directly involved in university life for a couple decades. So there are lots of details I don’t know, and plenty of things I didn’t learn during my time as a grad student and TA. But I think I do get the broad outlines. I know that what we’re talking about is full of risks, probable damage and levels of damage that are existential. So let me expand on what I’ve said by distilling points I’ve made in most of these email exchanges with readers over the last several days. To be clear, this isn’t meant as any sort of manifesto: just a distillation of what I think and some additional detail that expands on those earlier posts.

Most of what I said in these exchanges came down to five points.

In the mid-80s, when I was a teenager, I had a brief conversation with a successful, well-off doctor. I wasn’t a patient. This person was sort of a family friend. In that conversation he said matter-of-factly but with the air of a let’s-be-real statement that he wouldn’t want to treat AIDS patients because he didn’t want to run the risk of getting AIDS himself.

Some context is important. This was still very early in the AIDS epidemic. The first blood test for HIV only became available in 1985. This was not a callous or uncaring man. And, at least at the margins, it wasn’t yet as clear as it would eventually be just how much risk physicians faced. But the comment stuck with me and I kept thinking about it. I still haven’t forgotten it 40 years later.

Here is a topic that isn’t as consequential in itself as the wholesale and illegal reshaping of the federal government. But it is of a piece with it and captures the mood and pretensions of DOGE and Trumpism generally. News emerged a few days ago that the FBI has created a 20-person security detail for FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Bongino is the first deputy director who doesn’t come from within the FBI. That’s customary because often the director is a judge or a prosecutor who lacks knowledge of the agency from the inside. The director’s deputy, as a veteran of the bureau, provides that operational knowledge and thus a hands-on managerial control. Since Bongino has been a failed political candidate and podcaster for as long as he wore any kind of uniform, one might be tempted to ascribe this security detail to his personal quirks and pretensions. But it’s actually pervasive across the Trump administration, often especially within DOGE and with DOGE-adjacent appointees, whose firing squads often show up at target agencies with security details of uncertain origin.

I did a post a few days ago about how there really is no plan to any of this. The people around Trump are people who fall into two categories. One group is people who do have plans, sorta. They’re often pretty dumb plans, but they’re plans. And they’ve congregated around Trump because he is someone who looks like a useful instrument of their plans or someone who wants sorta kinda what they want or wants to get there in the same way. Maybe kinda. Trump’s Treasury Secretary (Bessent) and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors (Miran) seem to fall into this category. The second group is made up of sycophants, cultists, shysters and hustlers who are just along for the ride and generally working to retcon different explanations or theories of why Trump and the administration are doing what they’re doing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick epitomizes this category.

I didn’t know this until this morning. And I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten more press attention. We know that DOGE is in the process of gutting the IRS. According to internal IRS estimates reviewed by The Washington Post, this internal sabotage is already estimated to have cost the U.S. Treasury more than $500 billion in revenues that otherwise would have been raised by April 15th. But it doesn’t stop at the IRS. DOGE is also in the process of essentially closing down the Tax Division at the Department of Justice.

This post isn’t quite a post in the way I normally do them, more jotting down some of my brainstorming over the weekend.

Universities are a core pillar of civil society. Law firms are not. Observers have been waiting to see what would come of an amicus-brief-organizing campaign in support of Perkins Coie, the Seattle-based firm which was the first to be targeted by the Trump administration. Perkins Coie is also, significantly, the law firm for much of the institutional Democratic Party. It finally came out, and the brief was signed by more than 500 firms across the country. But it was not signed by any of the nation’s Top 20 firms, measured by revenue. I don’t know enough about the internal finances of the nation’s top-grossing firms. But I suspect they’re mostly like Paul, Weiss, which is to say they’re largely M&A firms, at least in terms of where they make their money — M&A and the management of other corporate transactions I don’t know acronyms for. It’s basically impossible to be in that business if you’re at war with the state that regulates mergers and acquisitions.

Just after Paul, Weiss cut their deal with President Trump, I spoke to a number of people either at the firm or proximate to it. One thing they helped me understand is that for firms like that, with a big M&A practice centered on partners with books of business ranging well into the tens of millions of dollars, it’s not just the clients who disappear in a flash. The money-making partners can too. So these vast, hugely money-making entities are actually quite fragile in their own way. The equivalent of a bank run dynamic and poof, they’re gone. But law firms come and law firms go. It is what it is.

Everyone in the country at the moment, albeit from different vantage points, seems to have the same question: What the actual fuck is going on?

Is the plan to have permanent tariffs? Are these meant as the basis of some kind of negotiation? Are we going to have blanket tariffs as the basis of a system of corruption in which favored industries and companies gain exemptions in exchange for fealty and cash? (So, countries as universities and law firms?) Is the idea just to replace income taxes with tariff income and fundamentally shift taxes to the middle and working classes?

At a basic level, the entire MAGA movement, and Donald Trump from whom all of it stems, simply doesn’t grasp the nature of American power or its limitations. In their view, the United States is the natural and inherent dominating power in the world. We’re the most powerful and the strongest. And starting from that view, they look out onto the world and think if we are in charge, why don’t we act like we’re in charge?