Connect with us

Politics

Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Demonstrators shout as cars pass by the Pasadena Tesla dealership.

(William Liang / For The Times)

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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 at a tall gate as people with umbrellas pass by

NYPD officers stand guard during a protest outside Columbia University on March 24 in New York City.

(Kena Betancur / Getty Images)

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 outside the White House

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)

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

‘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.”

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

Politics

Trump admin sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker over laws shielding migrants from courthouse arrests

Published

on

Trump admin sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker over laws shielding migrants from courthouse arrests

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker over new laws that aim to protect migrants from arrest at key locations, including courthouses, hospitals and day cares.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday, arguing that the new protective measures prohibiting immigration agents from detaining migrants going about daily business at specific locations are unconstitutional and “threaten the safety of federal officers,” the DOJ said in a statement.

The governor signed laws earlier this month that ban civil arrests at and around courthouses across the state. The measures also require hospitals, day care centers and public universities to have procedures in place for addressing civil immigration operations and protecting personal information.

The laws, which took effect immediately, also provide legal steps for people whose constitutional rights were violated during the federal immigration raids in the Chicago area, including $10,000 in damages for a person unlawfully arrested while attempting to attend a court proceeding.

Advertisement

PRITZKER SIGNS BILL TO FURTHER SHIELD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN ILLINOIS FROM DEPORTATIONS

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker over new laws that aim to protect migrants from arrest at key locations. (Getty Images)

Pritzker, a Democrat, has led the fight against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Illinois, particularly over the indiscriminate and sometimes violent nature in which they are detained.

But the governor’s office reaffirmed that he is not against arresting illegal migrants who commit violent crimes.

“However, the Trump administration’s masked agents are not targeting the ‘worst of the worst’ — they are harassing and detaining law-abiding U.S. citizens and Black and brown people at daycares, hospitals and courthouses,” spokesperson Jillian Kaehler said in a statement.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, the federal government reversed a Biden administration policy prohibiting immigration arrests in sensitive locations such as hospitals, schools and churches.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Midway Blitz,” which began in September in the Chicago area but appears to have since largely wound down for now, led to more than 4,000 arrests. But data on people arrested from early September through mid-October showed only 15% had criminal records, with the vast majority of offenses being traffic violations, misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies.

Gov. JB Pritzker has led the fight against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Illinois. (Kamil Krazaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)

Immigration and legal advocates have praised the new laws protecting migrants in Illinois, saying many immigrants were avoiding courthouses, hospitals and schools out of fear of arrest amid the president’s mass deportation agenda.

The laws are “a brave choice” in opposing ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to Lawrence Benito, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Advertisement

“Our collective resistance to ICE and CBP’s violent attacks on our communities goes beyond community-led rapid response — it includes legislative solutions as well,” he said.

The DOJ claims Pritzker and state Attorney General Kwame Raoul, also a Democrat, violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.”

ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS PASS BILL BANNING ICE IMMIGRATION ARRESTS NEAR COURTHOUSES

Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino leaves the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago. (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Raoul and his staff are reviewing the DOJ’s complaint.

“This new law reflects our belief that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or authority,” Pritzker’s office said. “Unlike the Trump administration, Illinois is protecting constitutional rights in our state.”

The lawsuit is part of an initiative by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to block state and local laws the DOJ argues impede federal immigration operations, as other states have also made efforts to protect migrants against federal raids at sensitive locations.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

Published

on

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy militia troops in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if the regular U.S. armed forces were unable to quell violence.

The law dating to 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces the threat of an invasion or a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Advertisement

That phrase turned out to be crucial.

Trump’s lawyers assumed it referred to the police and federal agents. But after taking a close look, the justices concluded it referred to the regular U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or the National Guard.

“To call the Guard into active federal service under the [Militia Act], the President must be ‘unable’ with the regular military ‘to execute the laws of the United States,’” the court said in Trump vs. Illinois.

That standard will rarely be met, the court added.

“Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from execut[ing] the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the court said. “So before the President can federalize the Guard … he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be ‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.

Advertisement

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.

Although the court was acting on an emergency appeal, its decision is a significant defeat for Trump and is not likely to be reversed on appeal. Often, the court issues one-sentence emergency orders. But in this case, the justices wrote a three-page opinion to spell out the law and limit the president’s authority.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees appeals from Illinois, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the deciding votes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome, but said he preferred a narrow and more limited ruling.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

Alito, in dissent, said the “court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.”

Advertisement

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“Today, Americans can breathe a huge sigh of relief,” Bonta said Tuesday. “While this is not necessarily the end of the road, it is a significant, deeply gratifying step in the right direction. We plan to ask the lower courts to reach the same result in our cases — and we are hopeful they will do so quickly.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to Newsom’s control.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

Advertisement

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Sauer told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Advertisement

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the standing U.S. armed forces.

Advertisement

A few days before, Georgetown law professor and former Justice Department lawyer Martin Lederman had filed a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that the “regular forces” cited in the 1903 law were the standing U.S. Army.

His brief prompted the court to ask both sides to explain their view of the disputed provision.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the standing army.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use” of the National Guard, not the standing military, to quell domestic disturbances, they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. Guard members were needed to enforce the law in Chicago.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

Published

on

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

new video loaded: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

transcript

transcript

Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

We’re calling it the golden fleet, that we’re building for the United States Navy. As you know, we’re desperately in need of ships. Our ships are, some of them have gotten old and tired and obsolete, and we’re going to go the exact opposite direction. They’ll help maintain American military supremacy, revive the American shipbuilding industry, and inspire fear in America’s enemies all over the world. We want respect.

Advertisement
President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

By Nailah Morgan

December 23, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending