Politics
Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
Alarmed by President Trump’s unprecedented effort to punish law firms he doesn’t like, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed nearly 200 fellow law school deans across the country last month, asking them to join him in condemning the attacks.
“The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution,” Chemerinsky wrote. “As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers.”
In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a “straightforward and non-controversial” statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined.
“A lot of people didn’t respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn’t feel comfortable,” Chemerinsky said.
The response showed that many in academia and the legal field “are being chilled from speaking out” for fear of becoming the president’s next target, Chemerinsky said.
“If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?” he asked. “It often won’t be anyone without law firms.”
President Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., on March 30.
(Luis M. Alvarez / Associated Press)
In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump’s intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond.
Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump’s focus on them.
There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won’t be next to draw the president’s ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues.
And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late.
Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating.
Demonstrators shout as cars pass by the Pasadena Tesla dealership.
(William Liang / For The Times)
“I feel like one of the things that’s really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests,” said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described “unhappy Democrat” who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla’s chief executive.
In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a “fighter” or a “folder.” She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders “to be braver.”
‘A climate of fear’
When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was “surprised just how quickly” the Trump administration had “created a climate of fear.”
“I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they’re intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they’re causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they’re causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they’re worried about losing government contracts,” said Schiff, who managed Trump’s first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump’s incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president.
But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said.
Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,” including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school’s New York campus.
Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
NYPD officers stand guard during a protest outside Columbia University on March 24 in New York City.
(Kena Betancur / Getty Images)
Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration’s demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone “while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.”
The university did not respond to a request for comment.
Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients.
Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump’s opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm’s lawyers as necessary for the firm’s financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump’s order in court “would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.”
At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon “illegal DEI” initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients.
Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students.
Others have denounced his claims and the deals he’s struck as deeply dangerous.
Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution.
In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being “at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration’s bullying tactics.” In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm’s deal with Trump “emboldened him to further undermine our democracy.”
‘We can’t worry about the consequences’
After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional.
“To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA,” the firm said in a statement.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks with reporters on March 31, 2025, in Washington. The White House has thrown the long-standing tradition of an independent press pool covering the president out the window.
(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)
The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it.
“It’s really about whether the government can control what you say,” AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was “doubling down” on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past.
Chad Dunn, the project’s legal director, said it is “at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution,” and that “this is a unique moment” where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks.
“In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can’t worry about the consequences,” he said.
‘The resistance is on’
At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates.
California is home to many.
Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently.
“The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we’ve seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win,” one recent message said.
“So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn’t backing down, and neither should you,” it continued. “Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on.”
Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren’t alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. “It’s kind of our place to hold this position and this platform.”
Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme “Queer Joy Is Resistance” for this summer’s events.
Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a “gut punch” — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more.
“Showing up at Pride this year,” she said, “is an act of resistance.”
Politics
Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
Politics
Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
Politics
Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Pennsylvania2 seconds agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island5 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina12 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota15 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee20 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas27 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah30 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont35 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83