Connect with us

News

How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump

Published

on

How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump

Since President Trump’s first term, Brad S. Karp, the chairman of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, championed himself as a bulwark against what he saw as an unlawful and unpredictable presidency.

Mr. Karp, who has a long history of fund-raising for Democrats, sought to unite major law firms in “a call to arms” to fight Mr. Trump in court on issues like his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents. He publicly said lawyers were obligated to defend the rule of law.

He hosted a “Lawyers for Biden” fund-raiser in 2023, and one of his top partners prepared Vice President Kamala Harris for her debates with Mr. Trump.

So it was not surprising that Mr. Trump targeted Paul Weiss with an executive order last week that created a potential existential threat for the firm, although the order was legally dubious and undercut fundamental principles of the justice system. In response, Mr. Karp began discussions with another big firm about presenting a unified and bipartisan front and challenging the order in court.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Karp walked into the Oval Office around 8:30 a.m., leaving behind the adversarial approach.

Advertisement

Now, he wanted to make a deal.

A day later, Mr. Trump announced that Mr. Karp had agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to issues the president has championed, including a task force being run by the Justice Department aimed at combating antisemitism “and other mutually agreed projects.”

The White House said the firm had committed to stop using diversity, equity and inclusion policies. And Mr. Trump said Mr. Karp had acknowledged to him that a former partner of the firm who had worked as a prosecutor in Manhattan and had pushed for Mr. Trump to be charged criminally had committed “wrongdoing.” These assertions appear inconsistent with a copy of the statement that Mr. Karp shared with his firm.

In deciding to bend to Mr. Trump, Mr. Karp likely saved his law firm, which had $2.63 billion in revenue last year and represents corporate clients like Exxon Mobil and Apollo Global Management, from hemorrhaging clients and lawyers.

But in doing so, Mr. Karp, who had positioned himself as a spokesman and advocate for the legal profession, left other firms even more vulnerable to Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign by demonstrating that his intimidation tactics could lead even a powerhouse like Paul Weiss to make public concessions, according to interviews with lawyers at other firms and legal experts.

Advertisement

In fact, a White House official said on Friday that despite the deal reached with Paul Weiss, Mr. Trump would continue to target law firms with executive orders, including some the president could sign as early as next week.

In the Oval Office on Friday, Mr. Trump asserted that law firms “did bad things” and had attacked him “ruthlessly, violently, illegally.” But now, he said, they “want to make deals.”

Mr. Karp’s decision left many in the legal world, including some in his own firm, reeling, concerned that other firms would now face a choice between bowing to Mr. Trump or abandoning their principles or political beliefs to avoid financial calamity.

Before reaching the deal, Mr. Karp, who has led Paul Weiss for nearly two decades, talked to some of the firm’s 200 partners to weigh their options, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. The group decided to seek a meeting with Mr. Trump to try and reach a deal, rather than engage in what could be a drawn-out legal battle, the people said. Those people and others who spoke for this story did so on the condition of anonymity to talk about discussions that were supposed to remain private.

Some of the firm’s corporate partners were particularly adamant that the firm should not sue the administration, the people said. That put them at odds with other partners who work on high-profile litigation and had been arguing that the firm should fight, some of whom expressed displeasure internally on Friday that Mr. Karp had settled, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Advertisement

The deal, while supported by the vast majority of the firm’s partners, also drew swift condemnation from lawyers outside the firm and critics of Mr. Trump.

And while many of the firm’s clients were relieved by the deal, some senior lawyers at large financial institutions began to privately express dismay, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Some of these lawyers suggested they would consider pulling business from the firm.

Mr. Trump has put law firms at the center of his efforts to seek revenge against enemies real and perceived, especially those linked to any efforts to investigate him or hold him legally accountable.

Before targeting Paul Weiss, Mr. Trump had issued executive orders imposing penalties on two other firms, Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. Last week a federal judge barred the order against Perkins Coie from going into effect on the grounds that it would likely be found to be illegal.

Many within the legal community had hoped that Mr. Karp, with his firm’s resources, would fight Mr. Trump in court as aggressively as did Perkins Coie, which was targeted by a nearly identical executive order earlier this month.

Advertisement

Paul Weiss employs many prominent Democrats and has expressed pride in its long history at the forefront of the fight for civil rights. It has trumpeted how it was the first major New York City firm to have Jewish and non-Jewish lawyers working alongside each other, to hire a Black associate and to have a female partner.

According to two people briefed on the matter, it initially appeared that Mr. Karp was headed down the path of suing Mr. Trump’s administration.

Last week, a federal judge in Washington temporarily barred enforcement of the executive order Mr. Trump had directed at Perkins Coie, saying, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

The judge’s decision relieved many in the legal community by suggesting that the courts would serve as a check against Mr. Trump and that the big firms would not have to confront him directly.

But two days after that decision, Mr. Trump signed a nearly identical executive order against Paul Weiss. That action deeply unnerved the big firms by showing that Mr. Trump would not be deterred by the courts. And it demonstrated that he was willing to try to target firms that had years-old ties to lawyers on his enemies list, like Mark F. Pomerantz, a former Paul Weiss partner. Mr. Pomerantz had tried to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump several years ago while working at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Advertisement

The executive order against Paul Weiss barred the firm from dealing with the government and suggested that clients of the firm could lose their government contracts. Those provisions were intended to drive business away from Paul Weiss, which employs more than 1,000 lawyers and has offices around the world.

Last Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Karp began discussions with William Burck, the co-managing partner of the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, about Mr. Burck joining Paul Weiss in bringing a court challenge against Mr. Trump’s order, people familiar with the talks said.

The discussions with Mr. Burck were notable given that Mr. Burck is one of the few lawyers at a major firm that represents the Trump Organization. He has also helped some of Mr. Trump’s nominees through their confirmation process. And bringing Paul Weiss together with Quinn Emanuel would signal to the industry that firms across the partisan divide were coming together to address what they saw as an all-out assault on their business.

Earlier this month, Mr. Burck declined to represent Perkins Coie, believing that it was not worth taking on Mr. Trump to help that firm. But with Mr. Trump undeterred by the judge’s ruling in the Perkins Coie case and moving against another firm, Mr. Burck agreed to help Paul Weiss and put his firm’s name on the suit against Mr. Trump.

At the same time, Mr. Karp weighed another possibility. With the help of Mr. Burck and other Trump-friendly contacts Mr. Karp had in the business world, Mr. Karp sought to determine whether it would be possible to cut a deal with Mr. Trump to resolve his firm’s problems.

Advertisement

Mr. Karp, whose firm has represented the N.F.L., had the New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, an ally of Mr. Trump’s, reach out to the president.

Mr. Burck began working the phones to the White House, reaching out to officials to signal that Mr. Karp was open to making a deal. During those conversations, Mr. Burck concluded that one of the White House’s biggest issues with Paul Weiss and other big firms was that they had refused to represent clients like Mr. Trump on the right — especially after the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol — whom they viewed as politically unsavory.

Mr. Burck relayed to the White House that Paul Weiss was willing to make some sort of public statement that they would represent clients no matter their political views.

Two days later, Mr. Trump called Mr. Karp and invited him to come to the White House. The following day, Mr. Karp went to visit Mr. Trump, where they met in the Oval Office for three hours. Mr. Trump’s adviser on negotiations, Steve Witkoff, joined the meeting, which was cordial, and both sides believed they had a potential framework for a deal.

At the same time, there was pressure on Mr. Karp. The lawyers at his firm who were preparing to sue Mr. Trump wanted to go to court as soon as possible, concerned that a judge might not give them a temporary restraining order because they waited too long.

Advertisement

In the day that followed, proposed language went back and forth between the White House, Mr. Burck and Mr. Karp.

Pursuing a deal represented a stark shift for Mr. Karp, who until recently was helping to marshal support for Perkins Coie. Mr. Karp was among the prominent lawyers working behind the scenes to persuade other law firms to sign a friend of the court brief on behalf of Perkins Coie, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. It is now unclear whether the brief — which was drafted by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a solicitor general during the Obama administration and a partner at Munger Tolles & Olson — will be filed.

The ordeal with Mr. Trump came at a personally trying time for Mr. Karp, who had suffered a heart attack just a few months earlier and was still easing his way back into his normally frenetic work schedule of nonstop meetings and client calls.

On Thursday evening, Mr. Karp sent a firm-wide email justifying the decision, writing that he had really just “reaffirmed” the firm’s statement of principles outlined in 1963 by one of Paul Weiss’s original named partners, Judge Simon H. Rifkind.

“Thank you all for your patience during this time,” Mr. Karp told the staff at the firm. “With this behind us, we can devote our complete focus — as we always do — to our clients, our work, our colleagues and our firm.”

Advertisement

But it was a bitter pill for some to swallow as lawyers knew the outside world would view the deal as capitulating to Mr. Trump, especially at a time when other institutions, like universities and media companies, have begun to settle with Mr. Trump rather than fight, infuriating and demoralizing Mr. Trump’s critics.

George Conway, a conservative lawyer and frequent critic of Mr. Trump, posted on social media, “This Paul Weiss capitulation is the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime, so appalling that I couldn’t believe it at first.”

By the time Mr. Trump made his announcement on Thursday, there were already signs that Paul Weiss had been burned in making a deal with Mr. Trump.

The copy of the agreement that Mr. Karp shared with Paul Weiss differed in some ways from Mr. Trump’s characterization of the deal in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Although Mr. Trump said the law firm had specifically agreed to not follow any diversity, equity and inclusion policies in its hiring practices, there is no reference to D.E.I. in the agreement that Mr. Karp shared. Mr. Trump has mounted an aggressive campaign against diversity initiatives in the federal government, labeling it as a form of workplace discrimination.

Advertisement

There also was no mention of Mr. Pomerantz, the former Paul Weiss partner, in the copy of the agreement circulated by Mr. Karp. Five people briefed on the matter said Mr. Karp said he did not criticize Mr. Pomerantz with the president, in spite of Mr. Trump’s assertion to the contrary.

In a statement issued on Thursday evening, Mr. Pomerantz denied he had done anything wrong.

Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum and Tyler Pager contributed reporting, and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

News

Arson engulfs Mississippi synagogue, a congregation once bombed by Ku Klux Klan

Published

on

Arson engulfs Mississippi synagogue, a congregation once bombed by Ku Klux Klan

A fire damaged the Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Miss. The fire department said arson was the cause.

Hannah Orlansky/Beth Israel Congregation


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Hannah Orlansky/Beth Israel Congregation

Authorities have charged one person with arson in a fire that badly damaged Beth Israel Congregation in Jackson, Miss., early Saturday morning. The Jackson Fire Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, and the FBI are investigating.

Zach Shemper, Beth Israel Congregation president, said he’s stunned.

“Crazy things happen all over the world and nothing really hits home until it actually hits directly home,” he told Mississippi Public Broadcasting. “When it hits home, it’s just hard. Honestly, I’m still trying to wrap my own head around it.”

Advertisement

Shemper also released a statement saying the synagogue and its 150 families are resilient.

“As Jackson’s only synagogue, Beth Israel is a beloved institution, and it is the fellowship of our neighbors and extended community that will see us through,” he said.

The congregation was founded in 1860, according to Beth Israel’s website. In 1967, local Ku Klux Klan members bombed the place of worship and the home of the rabbi at the time, who had spoken out against racism and segregation. No one was hurt in the civil rights-era bombings or Saturday’s fire.

Charles Felton, Jackson Fire Department chief of fire investigations, told NPR in an interview on Sunday that flames and smoke caused extensive damage and destroyed Beth Israel’s library, where he says the fire was started. The fire was reported to 911 just after 3 a.m.

“All contents in that library are destroyed. There’s not much that can be retrieved from the library area. The other portions of the building do not have actual fire damage, but they have damage as far as smoke and soot,” he said.

Advertisement

Shemper said the fire destroyed two Torahs, the Jewish sacred texts, and damaged five others. A Torah that survived the Holocaust was protected by a glass display case and was not damaged. The synagogue’s Tree of Life plaque honoring congregants’ meaningful occasions was destroyed. Shemper said the library, administrative offices and the lobby suffered the most damage.

Surveillance video shows a man wearing a hoodie and a mask pouring liquid from a can inside the synagogue, according to Shemper. Felton said Jackson Fire investigators later received information from an area hospital that led them to the suspect, who was arrested Saturday evening.

“There was a suspect possibly burned at a local hospital,” he told NPR. “They did go to the hospital at which point they interviewed the person of interest and that person did confess to having involvement in the fire.”

The Jackson Fire Department’s powers include the authority to charge suspects, according to Felton, who said the department has filed arson charges against the suspect, who authorities have not publicly named. He said federal authorities will make a determination on whether to pursue hate crime charges.

The FBI’s office in Jackson said in a statement that it was aware of the incident and was working with other law enforcement on the investigation.

Advertisement

Jackson Mayor John Horhn said the city stands with Beth Israel and the Jewish community.

“Acts of antisemitism, racism, and religious hatred are attacks on Jackson as a whole and will be treated as acts of terror against residents’ safety and freedom to worship,” said a statement from the mayor’s office.

Beth Israel is planning to immediately move forward.

“With support from our community, we will rebuild. Beth Israel Congregation has been the Jewish spiritual home in Jackson, Mississippi, for over 160 years,” said Shemper’s statement. “We are devastated but ready to rebuild.”

He said several local churches have offered temporary space for Beth Israel to continue services.

Advertisement

The attack comes after investigators say a father and son opened fire on Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, last month. Fifteen people were killed and dozens were injured.

Continue Reading

News

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good’s death

Published

on

Nationwide anti-ICE protests call for accountability after Renee Good’s death

A large bird puppet crafted at In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theatre in Minneapolis is carried down Lake Street during a march demanding ICE’s removal from Minnesota on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Ben Hovland/MPR News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Hovland/MPR News

People have been taking to the streets nationwide this weekend to protest the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old woman who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer this week.

At least 1,000 events across the U.S. were planned for Saturday and Sunday, according to Indivisible, a progressive grassroots coalition of activists helping coordinate the movement it calls “ICE Out For Good Weekend of Action.”

Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of Indivisible, said people are coming together to “grieve, honor those we’ve lost, and demand accountability from a system that has operated with impunity for far too long.”

Advertisement

“Renee Nicole Good was a wife, a mother of three, and a member of her community. She, and the dozens of other sons, daughters, friends, siblings, parents, and community members who have been killed by ICE, should be alive today,” Greenberg said in a statement on Friday. “ICE’s violence is not a statistic, it has names, families, and futures attached to it, and we refuse to look away or stay silent.”

Large crowds of demonstrators carried signs and shouted “ICE out now!” as protests continued across Minneapolis on Saturday. One of those protestors, Cameron Kritikos, told NPR that he is worried that the presence of more ICE agents in the city could lead to more violence or another death.

“If more ICE officers are deployed to the streets, especially a place here where there’s very clear public opposition to the terrorizing of our neighborhoods, I’m nervous that there’s going to be more violence,” the 31-year grocery store worker said. “I’m nervous that there are going to be more clashes with law enforcement officials, and at the end of the day I think that’s not what anyone wants.”

Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Demonstrators in Minneapolis on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2026.

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR

The night before, hundreds of city and state police officers responded to a “noise protest” in downtown Minneapolis. An estimated 1,000 people gathered Friday night, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, and 29 people were arrested.

Advertisement

People demonstrated outside of hotels where ICE agents were believed to be staying. They chanted, played drums and banged pots. O’Hara said that a group of people split from the main protest and began damaging hotel windows. One police officer was injured from a chunk of ice that was hurled at officers, he added.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned the acts of violence but praised what he said was the “vast majority” of protesters who remained peaceful, during a morning news conference.

“To anyone who causes property damage or puts others in danger: you will be arrested. We are standing up to Donald Trump’s chaos not with our own brand of chaos, but with care and unity,” Frey wrote on social media.

Commenting on the protests, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told NPR in a statement, “the First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting, assault and destruction,” adding, “DHS is taking measures to uphold the rule of law and protect public safety and our officers.”

Advertisement

Good was fatally shot the day after DHS launched a large-scale immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota set to deploy 2,000 immigration officers to the state.

In Philadelphia, police estimated about 500 demonstrators “were cooperative and peaceful” at a march that began Saturday morning at City Hall, Philadelphia Police Department spokesperson Tanya Little told NPR in a statement. And no arrests were made.

In Portland, Ore., demonstrators rallied and lined the streets outside of a hospital on Saturday afternoon, where immigration enforcement agents bring detainees who are injured during an arrest, reported Oregon Public Broadcasting.

A man and woman were shot and injured by U.S. Border Patrol agents on Thursday in the city. DHS said the shooting happened during a targeted vehicle stop and identified the driver as Luis David Nino-Moncada, and the passenger as Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both from Venezuela. As was the case in their assertion about Good’s fatal shooting, Homeland Security officials claimed the federal agent acted in self-defense after Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras “weaponized their vehicle.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Published

on

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A friend sent a meme to a group chat last week that, like many internet memes before it, managed to implant itself deep into my brain and capture an idea in a way that more sophisticated, expansive prose does not always manage. Somewhat ironically, the meme was about the ills of the internet. 

“People in 1999 using the internet as an escape from reality,” the text read, over an often-used image from a TV series of a face looking out of a car window. Below it was another face looking out of a different car window overlaid with the text: “People in 2026 using reality as an escape from the internet.” 

Oof. So simple, yet so spot on. With AI-generated slop — sorry, content — now having overtaken human-generated words and images online, with social media use appearing to have peaked and with “dumb phones” being touted as this year’s status symbol, it does feel as if the tide is beginning to turn towards the general de-enshittification of life. 

Advertisement

And what could be a better way to resist the ever-swelling stream of mediocrity and nonsense on the internet, and to stick it to the avaricious behemoths of the “attention economy”, than to pick up a work of fiction (ideally not purchased on one of these behemoths’ platforms), with no goal other than sheer pleasure and the enrichment of our lives? But while the tide might have started to turn, we don’t seem to have quite got there yet on the reading front, if we are on our way there at all.

Two-fifths of Britons said last year that they had not read a single book in the previous 12 months, according to YouGov. And, as has been noted many times before on both sides of the Atlantic, it is men who are reading the least — just 53 per cent had read any book over the previous year, compared with 66 per cent of women — both in overall numbers and specifically when it comes to fiction.

Yet pointing this out, and lamenting the “disappearance of literary men”, has become somewhat contentious. A much-discussed Vox article last year asked: “Are men’s reading habits truly a national crisis?” suggesting that they were not and pointing out that women only read an average of seven minutes more fiction per day than men (while failing to note that this itself represents almost 60 per cent more reading time).

Meanwhile an UnHerd op-ed last year argued that “the literary man is not dead”, positing that there exists a subculture of male literature enthusiasts keeping the archetype alive and claiming that “podcasts are the new salons”. 

That’s all well and good, but the truth is that there is a gender gap between men and women when it comes to reading and engaging specifically with fiction, and it’s growing.

Advertisement

According to a 2022 survey by the US National Endowment for the Arts, 27.7 per cent of men had read a short story or novel over the previous year, down from 35.1 per cent a decade earlier. Women’s fiction-reading habits declined too, but more slowly and from a higher base: 54.6 per cent to 46.9 per cent, meaning that while women out-read men by 55 per cent in 2012 when it came to fiction, they did so by almost 70 per cent in 2022.

The divide is already apparent in young adulthood, and it has widened too: data from 2025 showed girls in England took an A-Level in English literature at an almost four-times-higher rate than boys, with that gap having grown from a rate of about three times higher just eight years earlier.

So the next question is: should we care and, if so, why? Those who argue that yes, we should, tend to give a few reasons. They point out that reading fiction fosters critical thinking, empathy and improves “emotional vocabulary”. They argue that novels often contain heroic figures and strong, virtuous representations of masculinity that can inspire and motivate modern men. They cite Andrew Tate, the titan of male toxicity, who once said that “reading books is for losers who are afraid to learn from life”, and that “books are a total waste of time”, as an example of whose advice not to follow. 

I agree with all of this — wholeheartedly, I might add. But I’m not sure how many of us, women or men, are picking up books in order to become more virtuous people. Perhaps the more compelling, or at least motivating, reason for reading fiction is simply that it offers a form of pleasure and attention that the modern world is steadily eroding. In a hyper-capitalist culture optimised for skimming and distraction, the ability to sit still with a novel is both subversive and truly gratifying. The real question, then, is why so many men are not picking one up.

jemima.kelly@ft.com

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending