Connect with us

Politics

Head of Paul, Weiss Says Firm Would Not Have Survived Without Deal With Trump

Published

on

Head of Paul, Weiss Says Firm Would Not Have Survived Without Deal With Trump

The head of the elite New York law firm that cut a highly criticized deal with President Trump last week asserted on Sunday that he made the agreement because the firm was unlikely to survive a protracted legal fight with the Trump administration.

Brad Karp, the managing partner of the firm, Paul, Weiss said in an email to its lawyers that it was initially prepared to fight an executive order Mr. Trump had signed that essentially crippled the firm’s ability to represent clients.

But the firm’s clients were deeply concerned that even if Paul, Weiss won in court, it would still be labeled “persona non grata with the administration,” Mr. Karp said. He said that would potentially prompt clients to move their businesses to rival firms and cause Paul, Weiss to go under.

The email — the second Mr. Karp has sent to his firm in four days in which he has tried to explain the deal — demonstrated his efforts to stem the fallout, both internally and externally, from his decision to strike the agreement with Mr. Trump.

Some members of Mr. Karp’s firm — particularly litigators — had pushed to fight the order in court, arguing that a judge would quickly block Mr. Trump’s executive order. But members of the corporate practice — who account for a significant part of the firm’s revenue — insisted that Mr. Karp reach a deal to prevent clients from fleeing.

Advertisement

Mr. Karp, a prominent Democratic donor, had worked to harness the legal community against Mr. Trump during his first term and, in the past election cycle, to elect his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris. Critics have sharply criticized Mr. Karp and the firm — which had $2.63 billion in revenue last year and represents corporate clients like Exxon Mobil and Apollo Global Management — for too quickly bending to the president instead of fighting him in court, where a judge had already ruled that his executive order was likely illegal.

But Mr. Karp said in the email that even if a judge did block Mr. Trump’s order, the firm’s clients would be too scared of being perceived as being on the wrong side of the Trump administration to continue working with Paul, Weiss.

The claims from Mr. Karp underscored the power and effectiveness of Mr. Trump’s efforts to target law firms with executive orders over the past month, signaling that even the courts could not stop the president from potentially putting firms out of business if they did not capitulate to his administration’s demands.

“We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm,” Mr. Karp said in the email. “But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.”

Mr. Karp said that while the firm could stop the order from taking effect, “we couldn’t erase it.”

Advertisement

“Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to,” Mr. Karp said in the email. “It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration.”

The firm, formally called Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, has offices around the world. Its work involves mergers and acquisitions, private equity, white-collar and regulatory defense and litigation. Its clients also include Citigroup, Imagine Entertainment and Lucasfilm.

A week ago, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that essentially barred Paul, Weiss’s lawyers from entering federal buildings and dealing with the government. The order also said that companies doing business with Paul, Weiss could lose their government contracts.

Last Wednesday, Mr. Karp met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, and on Thursday, the president announced that Paul, Weiss had committed to represent clients regardless of their political views and would commit $40 million in pro bono legal work to causes Mr. Trump championed, including fighting antisemitism and helping veterans.

After the deal was announced on Thursday, Mr. Karp was widely criticized as capitulating to Mr. Trump and leaving other firms vulnerable.

Advertisement

Mr. Karp said in the email that the deal “was unambiguously in our clients’ best interests.” He said that thousands of the firm’s clients had reacted with relief to the “resolution of this situation and the fact that, as the president publicly has acknowledged, our firm now has an engaged and constructive relationship with this administration.”

“Even those who have expressed personal disappointment that we didn’t fight the administration have said they fully appreciate what was at stake for our law firm and respect our decision,” Mr. Karp said in his email.

Politics

CBS News correspondent accuses Bari Weiss of ‘political’ move in pulling ‘60 Minutes’ piece

Published

on

CBS News correspondent accuses Bari Weiss of ‘political’ move in pulling ‘60 Minutes’ piece

A “60 Minutes” story on the Trump administration’s imprisonment of hundreds of deported Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador was pulled by CBS News Editor-In-Chief Bari Weiss shortly before it was scheduled to air Sunday night.

The unusual decision drew a sharp rebuke from Sharyn Alfonsi, the correspondent for the piece.

Alfonsi said the decision was motivated by politics, according to an email she circulated to colleagues and viewed by the Times. Alfonsi noted that the story was ready for air after being vetted by the network’s attorneys and the standards and practices department.

“It is factually correct,” Alfonsi wrote. “In my view, pulling it now — after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

According to the CBS News press department’s description of the segment, Alfonsi spoke to released deportees who described “the brutal and torturous conditions they endured inside CECOT,” one of El Salvador’s harshest prisons.

Advertisement

In a statement, a representative for CBS News said the report called “Inside CECOT” will air in a future “60 Minutes” broadcast. “We determined it needed additional reporting,” the representative said.

Weiss viewed the segment late Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. She had a number of issues with story and asked for additional reporting, which could not be completed in time for airing on Sunday. A press release promoting the story went out Friday.

Weiss reportedly wanted the story to have an interview with an official in President Trump’s administration.

But Alonsi said in her email the program “requested responses to questions and/or interviews” with the the Department of Homeland Security, the White House and the State Department.

“Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote. “Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.”

Advertisement

Alfonsi’s email said she learned the story was pulled on Saturday and that she had not discussed the matter with Weiss.

Even if Weiss’ concerns might be valid, the sudden postponement of a “60 Minutes” piece after it has been promoted on air, on social media and through listings on TV grids is a major snafu for the network.

For Weiss, it’s perilous situation as her every move as a digital media entrepreneur with no experience in television is being closely scrutinized.

As the founder of the conservative-friendly digital news site who was personally recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, journalists at CBS News and media industry observers are watching to see if Weiss’ actions are tilting its editorial content to the right.

Before it was acquired by Skydance Media, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit making the dubious claim that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to aid her 2024 presidential election campaign against him.

Advertisement

Trump recently said “60 Minutes” is “worse” under Paramount’s new ownership following an interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, in which she was highly critical of the president and his administration.

Paramount acquired the Free Press for $150 million as part of the deal to bring Weiss over. Her first major move was to air a highly sympathetic town hall with Erika Kirk, the widow of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Erika Kirk has taken over as head of Turning Point USA, the political organization her husband founded.

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS responds after reports CISA chief allegedly failed polygraph for classified intel access

Published

on

DHS responds after reports CISA chief allegedly failed polygraph for classified intel access

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is disputing reports that acting Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph after seeking access to highly sensitive intelligence, as an internal investigation and the suspension of multiple career cybersecurity officials deepen turmoil inside the agency, according to a report.

Politico reported that Gottumukkala pushed for access to a tightly restricted intelligence program that required a counter-intelligence polygraph and that at least six career staffers were later placed on paid administrative leave for allegedly misleading leadership about the requirement, an assertion DHS strongly denies.

The outlet said its reporting was based on interviews with four former and eight current cybersecurity officials, including multiple Trump administration appointees who worked with Gottumukkala or had knowledge of the polygraph examination and the events that followed. All 12 were granted anonymity over concerns about retaliation, according to Politico.

DHS pushed back on the reporting, saying the polygraph at issue was not authorized and that disciplinary action against career staff complied with department policy.

Advertisement

KRISTI NOEM SAYS BIDEN USED DHS ‘TO INVADE THE COUNTRY WITH TERRORISTS’

DHS disputes reports that acting CISA Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph as staff are suspended amid an internal investigation and intel access dispute. (CISA Facebook)

“Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala did not fail a sanctioned polygraph test. An unsanctioned polygraph test was coordinated by staff, misleading incoming CISA leadership,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The employees in question were placed on administrative leave, pending conclusion of an investigation.”

“We expect and require the highest standards of performance from our employees and hold them directly accountable to uphold all policies and procedures,” she continued. “Acting Director Gottumukkala has the complete and full support of the Secretary and is laser focused on returning the agency to its statutory mission.”

Politico also reported that Gottumukkala failed a polygraph during the final week of July, citing five current officials and one former official.

Advertisement

WHITE HOUSE CALLS REPORT ABOUT TRUMP CONSIDERING FIRING NOEM ‘TOTAL FAKE NEWS’

DHS disputes reports that acting CISA Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph as staff are suspended amid an internal investigation and intel access dispute. (CISA Facebook)

The test was administered to determine whether he would be eligible to review one of the most sensitive intelligence programs shared with CISA by another U.S. spy agency, according to the outlet.

That intelligence was part of a controlled access program with strict distribution limits, and the originating agency required any CISA personnel granted need-to-know access to first pass a counter-intelligence polygraph, according to four current officials and one former official cited by Politico.

As a civilian agency, most CISA employees do not require access to such highly classified material or a polygraph to be hired, though polygraphs are commonly used across the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community to protect the government’s most sensitive information.

Advertisement

ICE LEADERSHIP SHAKEUP EXPOSES GROWING DHS FRICTION OVER DEPORTATION TACTICS, PRIORITIES

A person administers a polygraph test.  (Getty Images)

Politico reported that senior staff raised questions on at least two occasions about whether Gottumukkala needed access to the intelligence, but said he continued pressing for it even if it meant taking a polygraph, citing four current officials.

The outlet also reported that an initial access request in early June, signed by mid-level CISA staff, was denied by a senior agency official who determined there was no urgent need-to-know and noted that the agency’s previous deputy director had not viewed the program.

That senior official was later placed on administrative leave for unrelated reasons in late June, and a second access request signed by Gottumukkala was approved in early July after the official was no longer in the role, according to current officials cited by Politico.

Advertisement

KRISTI NOEM FACES FIRST MAJOR HOMELAND SECURITY GRILLING AS LAWMAKERS PRESS HER ON TERROR THREATS

DHS disputes reports that acting CISA Director Madhu Gottumukkala failed a polygraph as staff are suspended amid an internal investigation and intel access dispute. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Despite being advised that access to the most sensitive material was not essential to his job and that lower-classification alternatives were available, Gottumukkala continued to pursue access, officials told the outlet.

Officials interviewed by Politico said they could not definitively explain why Gottumukkala did not pass the July polygraph and cautioned that failures can occur for innocuous reasons such as anxiety or technical errors, noting that polygraph results are generally not admissible in U.S. courts.

On Aug. 1, shortly after the polygraph, at least six career staff involved in scheduling and approving the test were notified in letters from then–acting DHS Chief Security Officer Michael Boyajian that their access to classified national security information was being temporarily suspended for potentially misleading Gottumukkala, according to officials and a letter reviewed by Politico.

Advertisement

NOEM HITS BACK AT FEMA CRITICS, REVEALS VISION FOR DISASTER RELIEF AGENCY

“This action is being taken due to information received by this office that you may have participated in providing false information to the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the existence of a requirement for a polygraph examination prior to accessing certain programs,” the letter said. “The above allegation shows deliberate or negligent failure to follow policies that protect government information, which raises concerns regarding an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability or willingness and ability to safeguard classified information.”

In a separate letter dated Aug. 4, the suspended employees were informed by Acting CISA Chief Human Capital Officer Kevin Diana that they had been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, according to current and former officials and a copy reviewed by Politico.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Gottumukkala was appointed CISA deputy director in May and previously served as commissioner and chief information officer for South Dakota’s Bureau of Information and Technology, which oversees statewide technology and cybersecurity initiatives.

Advertisement

CISA said in a May press release that Gottumukkala has more than two decades of experience in information technology and cybersecurity across the public and private sectors.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

News Analysis: Trump’s math problem: Rising prices, falling approval ratings

Published

on

News Analysis: Trump’s math problem: Rising prices, falling approval ratings

President Trump made dozens of promises when he campaigned to retake the White House last year, from boosting economic growth to banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports.

But one pledge stood out as the most important in many voters’ eyes: Trump said he would not only bring inflation under control, but push grocery and energy prices back down.

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” he said in 2024. “Your prices are going to come tumbling down, your gasoline is going to come tumbling down, and your heating bills and cooling bills are going to be coming down.”

He hasn’t delivered. Gasoline and eggs are cheaper than they were a year ago, but most other prices are still rising, including groceries and electricity. The Labor Department estimated Thursday that inflation is running at 2.7%, only a little better than the 3% Trump inherited from Joe Biden; electricity was up 6.9%.

And that has given the president a major political problem: Many of the voters who backed him last year are losing faith.

Advertisement

“I voted for Trump in 2024 because he was promising America first … and he was promising a better economy,” Ebyad, a nurse in Texas, said on a Focus Group podcast hosted by Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell. “It feels like all those promises have been broken.”

Since Inauguration Day, the president’s job approval has declined from 52% to 43% in the polling average calculated by statistician Nate Silver. Approval for Trump’s performance on the economy, once one of his strongest points, has sunk even lower to 39%.

That’s dangerous territory for a president who hopes to help his party keep its narrow majority in elections for the House of Representatives next year.

To Republican pollsters and strategists, the reasons for Trump’s slump are clear: He overpromised last year and he’s under-performing now.

“The most important reasons he won in 2024 were his promises to bring inflation down and juice the economy,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. “That’s the reason he won so many voters who traditionally had supported Democrats, including Hispanics. … But he hasn’t been able to deliver. Inflation has moderated, but it hasn’t gone backward.”

Advertisement

Last week, after deriding complaints about affordability as “a Democrat hoax,” Trump belatedly launched a campaign to convince voters that he’s at work fixing the problem.

But at his first stop, a rally in Pennsylvania, he continued arguing that the economy is already in great shape.

“Our prices are coming down tremendously,” he insisted.

“You’re doing better than you’ve ever done,” he said, implicitly dismissing voters’ concerns.

He urged families to cope with high tariffs by cutting back: “You know, you can give up certain products,” he said. “You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don’t need 37 dolls.”

Advertisement

Earlier, in an interview with Politico, Trump was asked what grade he would give the economy. “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” he said.

On Wednesday, the president took another swing at the issue in a nationally televised speech, but his message was basically the same.

“One year ago, our country was dead. We were absolutely dead,” he said. “Now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. … Inflation is stopped, wages are up, prices are down.”

Republican pollster David Winston, who has advised GOP members of Congress, said the president has more work to do to win back voters who supported him in 2024 but are now disenchanted.

“When families are paying the price for hamburger that they used to pay for steak, there’s a problem, and there’s no sugarcoating it,” he said. “The president’s statements that ‘we have no inflation’ and ‘our groceries are down’ have flown in the face of voters’ reality.”

Advertisement

Another problem for Trump, pollsters said, is that many voters believe his tariffs are pushing prices higher — making the president part of the problem, not part of the solution. A YouGov poll in November found that 77% of voters believe tariffs contribute to inflationary pressures.

Trump’s popularity hasn’t dropped through the floor; he still has the allegiance of his fiercely loyal base. “He is at his lowest point of his second term so far, but he is well within the range of his job approval in the first term,” Ayres noted.

Still, he has lost significant chunks of his support among independent voters, young people and Latinos, three of the “swing voter” groups who put him over the top in 2024.

Inflation isn’t the only issue that has dented his standing.

He promised to lead the economy into “a golden age,” but growth has been uneven. Unemployment rose in November to 4.6%, the highest level in more than four years.

Advertisement

He promised massive tax cuts for the middle class, but most voters say they don’t believe his tax cut bill brought them any benefit. “It’s hard to convince people that they got a tax break when nobody’s tax rates were actually cut,” Ayres noted.

He kept his promise to launch the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history — but many voters complain that he has broken his promise to focus on violent criminals. In Silver’s average, approval of his immigration policies dropped from 52% in January to 45% now.

A Pew Research Center survey in October found that 53% of adults, including 71% of Latinos, think the administration has ordered too many deportations. However, most voters approve of Trump’s measures on border security.

Republican pollsters and strategists say they believe Trump can reverse his downward momentum before November’s congressional election, but it may not be easy.

“You look at what voters care about most, and you offer policies to address those issues,” GOP strategist Alex Conant suggested. “That starts with prices. So you talk about permitting reform, energy prices, AI [artificial intelligence] … and legislation to address healthcare, housing and tax cuts. You could call it the Affordability Act.”

Advertisement

“A laser focus on the economy and the cost of living is job one,” GOP pollster Winston said. “His policies on regulation, energy and taxes should have a positive impact, but the White House needs to emphasize them on a more consistent basis.”

“People voted for change in 2024,” he warned. “If they don’t get it — if inflation doesn’t begin to recede — they may vote for change again in 2026.”

Continue Reading

Trending