News
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post
The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.
The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.
The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”
“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.
Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.
The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.
The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.
The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.
“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”
Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.
“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.
In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.
News
Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket
new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski
April 18, 2026
News
What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it
A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.
“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”
The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.
Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
In 2015, patience led to a deal
The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.
AFP/via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
AFP/via Getty Images
“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.
“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”
Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.
“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”
Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”
Distrust but verify
Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.
“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.
“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.
Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”
Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.
Negotiations have a leveling effect
Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.
Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.
In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.
-
Mississippi5 minutes agoGeorge County High School senior killed in Highway 26 crash, MHP says
-
Missouri11 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026
-
Montana17 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for April 18, 2026
-
Nebraska23 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada29 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire35 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey41 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico47 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico