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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Teen Who Set Off Avalanche Is Fourth Person Killed on Alaska Slopes This Month

Published

on

Teen Who Set Off Avalanche Is Fourth Person Killed on Alaska Slopes This Month

An Alaska teenager who was riding a snowmobile was killed on Saturday when he set off an avalanche and was buried, becoming the fourth person in the state to lose their life in a mountain slide this month, the authorities said.

The number is high for Alaska, which forecasters say in recent years has been averaging three avalanche deaths annually.

The 16-year-old, whose body was recovered on Sunday, was identified by the Alaska State Troopers as Tucker Challan of Soldotna, Alaska. He was buried under about 10 feet of snow while riding in Turnagain Pass in the Kenai Mountains, about 60 miles south of Anchorage.

The avalanche occurred on the backside of Seattle Ridge, in a popular recreation area known as Warmup Bowl, the Chugach National Forest Avalanche Information Center said.

At the time, the center reported, there was a weak layer of frost about two to three feet beneath the snow surface, which experts say can easily collapse and cause an avalanche. The layers form when the weather is clear and present a hidden danger with each new winter storm.

Advertisement

“It’s like a layer cake,” Wendy Wagner, the center’s director, said in a phone interview on Monday. “It has been causing many avalanches.”

According to the center, a group of people who were riding snow machines — often referred to as snowmobiles outside Alaska — dug Tucker out of the snow in about an hour, but he had died from his injuries.

On the afternoon of his death, the center held an avalanche awareness program in a parking lot on the other side of the ridge, which it said was a coincidence. It is continuing to warn that people should avoid traveling on or below steep terrain.

Noting that avalanches can reach speeds over 60 miles per hour, Ms. Wagner said that snowmobile riders and skiers should not assume that the snowpack is stable because other people have crossed it.

“There can be a sense that if you trigger something that you can outrun it,” she said. “Just because there have been tracks on a slope doesn’t mean that slope is safe.”

Advertisement

On March 4, three people who were part of a helicopter skiing excursion were killed when they were swept away in an avalanche near Girdwood, Alaska, about 20 miles from where Saturday’s slide happened.

The authorities identified the three men as David Linder, 39, of Florida; Charles Eppard, 39, of Montana; and Jeremy Leif, 38, of Minnesota.

Despite deploying their avalanche airbags, according to the helicopter skiing company that the skiers had hired, they were buried beneath 40 to 100 feet of snow and could not be reached.

Ms. Wagner said this year had been particularly treacherous in Alaska.

“It’s been an unusual year,” she said, “tragically.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump to hit countries that buy Venezuelan oil with 25% tariff

Published

on

Donald Trump to hit countries that buy Venezuelan oil with 25% tariff

Donald Trump said the US would impose a 25 per cent tariff on all imports from any country that buys oil from Venezuela, a move that could roil crude markets and sharply raise levies on goods from China and India.

The announcement on Monday came days ahead of the president’s planned unveiling of a new tariff regime on US trading partners and amid a chaotic trade policy rollout marked by reversals and U-turns.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was imposing the tariff for “numerous reasons”, alleging that “Venezuela has purposefully and deceitfully sent to the United States, undercover, tens of thousands of high level, and other, criminals, many of whom are murderers and people of a very violent nature”.

Venezuela exported 660,000 barrels a day of crude globally last year, according to consultancy Kpler. China, which has been hit with 20 per cent tariffs from Trump this year, is among the top buyers, alongside India, Spain and Italy.

Speaking to reporters later on Monday, Trump said the 25 per cent tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan crude would come in addition to any existing levies.

Advertisement

“That’s on top of existing tariffs — yes,” the president said.

The US imported about 230,000 b/d from Venezuela in 2024, making the South American nation its fourth-biggest supplier last year.

The latest escalation of Trump’s trade war comes days after Caracas agreed to begin receiving planeloads of deported migrants from the US, in a concession to the US president.

The move risks stoking turmoil in the oil market, something the White House has been keen to avoid in an attempt to prevent supply disruption from raising petrol prices for American motorists. Brent crude rose 1.3 per cent following the announcement.

“If we see Venezuelan supply coming out of the market, that means less global supply, which means oil prices go up,” said Matt Smith, lead oil analyst at Kpler. “That gets passed on to prices of the pump, which is the opposite of President Trump’s goals.”

Advertisement

The US president referred to Monday’s unprecedented move as a “secondary tariff” and said it would take effect from April 2, which he has dubbed “liberation day”, when reciprocal levies on other countries will also come into force.

Analysts said countries were likely to cut imports rather than risk the tariffs.

“We have never [before] seen secondary tariffs but a literal interpretation of Trump’s Truth Social statement suggests it could lead to a significant disruption to Venezuelan exports,” said Fernando Ferreira, director of geopolitical risk at consultancy Rapidan Energy. 

“Absent clarification from the administration on potential exemptions, I suspect most countries will self-sanction to avoid across-the-board tariffs on all exports to the US,” he added.

The US Treasury recently cancelled Chevron’s licence to operate in Venezuela, which is under broad sanctions, ordering the California-based oil group to wind down its operations within 30 days.

Advertisement

The Treasury on Monday extended the deadline for Chevron to wind down its oil production in the country until May 27.

Chevron’s licence allowed it to export about 200,000 b/d last year, which Venezuela’s democratic opposition said contributed to funding repression by President Nicolás Maduro’s government.

Chevron declined to comment on either Monday’s tariff announcement or the Treasury extension. The Venezuelan government did not respond to a request for comment.

As part of Venezuela’s agreement to resume accepting deportees from the US, a flight carrying 199 people landed near Caracas on Sunday.

Trump has in recent weeks pushed to deport hundreds of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, which the US has designated a terrorist organisation.

Advertisement

In his Truth Social post on Monday, the president referenced the gang and said Venezuela had been “very hostile to the United States and the Freedoms which we espouse”.

Earlier this month, the US deported some alleged gang members to El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele had agreed to hold them in the country’s “very good jails at a fair price that will also save our taxpayer dollars”.

The Department of Justice on Monday said it would deport three alleged Tren de Aragua members to Chile.

The Maduro government, which has often used the exodus of its citizens as leverage in negotiations with Washington, said migrants had been “kidnapped” and sent to El Salvador.

Ryan Berg, director of the Americas programme at Washington think-tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, said if the tariffs hit all countries that have companies with business in Venezuela’s oil sector, they could further isolate Maduro as he seeks to consolidate power.

Advertisement

“This tariff could actually have a significant impact on making companies exit from Venezuela’s oil market,” Berg said. “We’re in entirely uncharted territory right now.”

Continue Reading

News

Judge contends Nazis got more due process than Trump deportees did

Published

on

Judge contends Nazis got more due process than Trump deportees did

In this handout photo provided by the Salvadoran government, members of the Salvadorian army stand guard at CECOT on March 16, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported alleged members of Tren de Aragua gang and others to El Salvador.

Handout/Salvadoran government via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Handout/Salvadoran government via Getty Images

The Trump administration received pointed questions from a judge over how it’s implementing a rarely-used wartime law to deport Venezuelans suspected of being Tren de Aragua gang members.

A president last invoked the Alien Enemies Act after the attack on Pearl Harbor, designating Japanese, German and Italian nationals as “alien enemies” during World War II.

“Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than what has happened here,” D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Millett said during a hearing at the court on Monday. “And they had hearing boards before they were removed.”

Advertisement

“People weren’t given notice, they weren’t told where they were going,” she said about the removal of Venezuelans and others to El Salvador earlier this month.

Lawyers with the Justice Department are asking the appeals court in Washington to overturn a temporary restraining order blocking deportations under the act put in place by district court Judge James Boasberg. A ruling to lift the temporary pause on deportations, or keep it in place, is likely to prompt an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fight over the rarely used wartime power has become central to Trump’s immigration crackdown agenda and his efforts to stretch the power of the executive branch.

The panel of three judges did not deliver a decision from the bench but could do so in the coming days.

Judge Millett appeared sympathetic to the arguments of immigrants rights groups who sought to block immediate deportations, but it is unclear which way Judge Karen Henderson, a George W. Bush appointee, was leaning.

Advertisement

According to court documents, if the judge lifts the pause, some 258 people would likely be placed in removal proceedings under the Alien Enemies Act for being alleged members of Tren de Aragua.

DOJ says pause was “enormous intrusion” on president’s power

Justice Department lawyers argued that Boasberg’s order to pause removals under the act is an “unprecedented and enormous intrusion” on the president’s power and that this type of “second-guessing” could potentially hurt the United States’ current and future deals with other countries. The U.S. has negotiated with El Salvador and other countries to take in deportees.

Drew Ensign, the government attorney leading the case, received pointed questions about how it could work for people detained or even removed under the Alien Enemies Act to bring up individual petitions to contest allegations they are members of the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.

“The problem here is that they are challenging implementation of the proclamation in a way that never gave anyone a chance to say, ‘I’m not covered,” Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said. She said prior cases clearly show the government needs to give people that due process.

Due process “can’t be an unlawful intrusion of the president’s powers. The president has to comply with the constitution and laws like everybody else,” she said.

Advertisement

Judge Justin Walker, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, was sympathetic to the government’s argument that those who are currently detained under the Alien Enemies Act should contest their arrests through a habeas petition, which is how someone can legally argue they are being unlawfully detained.

Walker suggested that the plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, should have filed in Texas as opposed to in D.C. The five Venezuelan plaintiffs that first filed the lawsuit are held in Texas, even though their lawyers argued that they now are also representing hundreds of people potentially subject to the act nationwide.

Still, Ensign said that should the judges side with the government and lift the pause on deportations, the government would not have a limitation and not be required to provide notice for those deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Lower DC court keeps pause on deportations in place

Earlier in the day, Boasberg issued an order to keep in place his 14-day pause on the administration’s ability to deport anyone under the act.

Boasberg denied the government’s attempt to vacate his temporary restraining order, noting that immigrant rights groups were likely to win the argument in court that the men deported to El Salvador should have gotten individualized hearings to determine whether the act applied to them.

Advertisement

“Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” Boasberg wrote in his order. “Nor may any members of the provisionally certified class be removed until they have been given the opportunity to challenge their designations as well.”

Boasberg said the pause on the flights does not prevent the government from making arrests, or even deporting those it suspects of being members of Tren de Aragua.

He gave the immigrant rights groups until Wednesday to file a preliminary injunction, which could pave the way for an even longer court-ordered pause on the use of the wartime powers.

Boasberg also direct Trump’s cabinet secretaries to decide by Tuesday whether they were going to invoke a privilege that would allow them to not disclose information about the deportation flights.

Boasberg and the DOJ went back and forth over whether the administration ignored the judge’s order to not use the act to send 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador on March 15.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending