Latest news with #KStreet
Politico
4 days ago
- Business
- Politico
The New York Times lobbies up
With Katherine Long, Daniel Lippman FIRST IN PI — NYT HIRES BROWNSTEIN: The New York Times has registered to lobby for the first time in more than a decade. The news giant has retained K Street heavyweight Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to represent it on a range of issues affecting the industry, from encroachments on press freedoms to the threats posed by artificial intelligence. — The Times' parent company first hired Brownstein last year, but the firm's work didn't trigger lobbying registration requirements until April, according to a spokesperson for the company and a draft disclosure filing shared with PI. More than half a dozen lobbyists are listed as working on the account for Brownstein: Republicans Marc Lampkin, Will Moschella and Greta Joynes and Democrats Al Mottur, Alice Lugo, Rob Robillard and John Menges. — One issue drawing the paper off the lobbying sidelines is the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence and the thorny issues it poses for news organizations. The Times, for example, introduced a suite of AI tools for internal use earlier this year. And many news outlets (including the Times, POLITICO and parent company Axel Springer) have partnered with AI companies on licensing deals and consumer-facing products. — But NYT is also one of several publishers facing off in court against ChatGPT creator OpenAI or other AI companies accused of copyright infringement for using outlets' content to train its models without permission or compensation. — In a congressional hearing on the issue last year, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) warned that AI was 'literally eating away at the lifeblood of our democracy' and contributing to an 'existential crisis' among local publishers in particular. The last Congress also mulled legislation that would require online platforms like Google and Meta to negotiate with and pay news publishers in exchange for hosting their content. — At the same time, Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger has been repeatedly sounding the alarm about threats to press freedom both around the world and from leaders in the U.S. — In a speech last month that was republished as an essay in the Times, Sulzberger took note of President Donald Trump's escalating pressure campaign against news outlets already in his second term — from curtailing access to certain mainstream outlets in favor of friendlier partisan ones to suing, seeking to defund or opening federal probes of others and calling for the jailing of reporters. — 'It takes significant time, effort, and resources to produce The New York Times's fact-based original journalism and other content. Because of that, we have for years taken steps to protect and defend our intellectual property rights and uphold its value,' a Times spokesperson told PI in a statement. — 'In line with these efforts, we have engaged a Washington, DC-based government affairs firm to ensure our rights and legal protections are clearly and accurately represented among policymakers and regulators focused on publishing, media, copyright law and press freedoms,' it added. — The Times hasn't lobbied at the federal level since 2014, when the company paid Keightley & Ashner $30,000 for three quarters of work related to a pension issue. TGIF and welcome to PI. This newsletter runs on tips, so let's hear 'em. You can add me on Signal, email me at coprysko@ and be sure to follow me on X: @caitlinoprysko. ALL ABOUT AVA: A coalition of budget airlines this week launched the Association of Value Airlines, a new industry group aimed at boosting low-budget carriers in policy debates often dominated by the trade association representing major carriers, Airlines for America. AVA's founding members include Allegiant, Avelo, Frontier, Spirit and Sun Country. — Chris Brown currently serves as the group's interim executive director. He previously was vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs at larger industry trade association Airlines for America, and lobbied for low-fare airlines at the National Air Carrier Association. — In an interview with PI, Brown said the goal of AVA is to amplify the priorities of budget airlines, as larger organizations encompassing a range of air carriers often lead to competing priorities. Those priorities, Brown said, include a focus on rising costs due to the pilot shortage and the implementation of simulator training programs within the current 1,500-hour training requirement for pilots. — While the budget airlines business model thrived during the pandemic, they're now at an inflection point, Brown said. Brown attributes these airlines' success to ancillary fees, a model that other high-budget airlines have started to mirror. Southwest Airlines, for example, announced in March plans to do away with its free checked bag policy. — 'It's a critical time for our carriers, because of where they are financially and wanting to take advantage of what should be a more favorable regulatory environment with the Trump administration,' Brown said. PAUL WEISS LOSES ANOTHER BIG NAME: Another prominent lawyer has left Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison after the law firm struck a deal with the Trump administration to avoid being punished by an executive order. — Damian Williams, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, left the firm after just five months to join Jenner & Block as the co-chair of its litigation department and investigations, compliance and defense practice. — Williams served as one of the nation's top federal prosecutors during the Biden administration, securing several high-profile convictions including those of former crypto kingmaker Sam Bankman-Fried and former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). — Williams is the latest in a string of notable departures from Paul Weiss in the aftermath of its deal with the White House. Top Democratic attorney Karen Dunn and former top DOJ official Jeannie Rhee left the firm along with two other partners last month. — But Williams' landing spot is almost more notable: Jenner & Block became one of the first white shoe law firms targeted by Trump to take the president to court over his executive orders — and so far, they've been winning. OFF TARGET: 'A top Democratic organization strongly encouraged state campaigns to do much of their digital ad-buying business with a company that one of its members is set to soon join as CEO — a development that has puzzled and concerned some party insiders,' POLITICO's Holly Otterbein and Daniel report. — 'At a meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas last week, the Association of State Democratic Committees — an umbrella group for state parties — voted to recommend state races use one liberal firm, TargetSmart, for a major portion of digital ad buys, which could be worth millions.' — 'TargetSmart announced on May 7 that Liz Walters, outgoing chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, is taking over as CEO this summer. Walters, who made her departure public in a post on X, said she would leave the state party role by June 30. And until the week before the group's meeting, she was part of the ASDC's leadership team as treasurer.' — Though Walters recused herself from the TargetSmart vote, the incident is prompting fears among the party of even the appearance of a conflict of interest as Democrats struggle to find their footing. BLAST RADIUS: 'The spectacular breakup between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump threatens to leave Tesla with few political friends,' POLITICO's David Ferris reports. 'Musk has spent the past few months alienating the electric automaker's base of climate-minded car buyers by moonlighting as Trump's government-slasher-in-chief. Now, the billionaire's fixation on the GOP megabill has opened a dangerous rift with the president, who threatened Thursday to end all subsidies to Musk's companies.' — Musk's competitors in the space industry, meanwhile, are already moving to take advantage of the split, according to our Sam Skove. The SpaceX founder has long been an avid proponent of next bringing humans to Mars, rather than the moon. — But in some of the first significant pushback against Musk and SpaceX, 'a number of major space companies … are launching an ad campaign going big on the moon, according to two industry officials granted anonymity to discuss the effort.' — 'A separate letter addressed to the Senate Commerce Committee, and obtained by POLITICO, backs investments in the moon, and is signed by a lengthy slate of prominent space companies — but not SpaceX.' RELATED READ: 'What do Musk and Tesla want from the Republican megabill?' by E&E News' Kelsey Brugger. SHE MEANS BUSINESS: Casey Means, Trump's new nominee to be U.S. surgeon general, 'has repeatedly said the nation's medical, health and food systems are corrupted by special interests and people out to make a profit at the expense of Americans' health,' The Associated Press' Michelle R. Smith and Ali Swenson write. — But as Means 'has criticized scientists, medical schools and regulators for taking money from the food and pharmaceutical industries, she has promoted dozens of health and wellness products — including specialty basil seed supplements, a blood testing service and a prepared meal delivery service — in ways that put money in her own pocket.' — 'In her newsletter, on her social media accounts, on her website, in her book and during podcast appearances, the entrepreneur and influencer has at times failed to disclose that she could profit or benefit in other ways from sales of products she recommends. In some cases, she promoted companies in which she was an investor or adviser without consistently disclosing the connection, the AP found.' AI GROUP STAFFS UP: AI advocacy group Americans for Responsible Innovation is adding four new staffers to its policy team, Morning Tech reports. Brandie Nonnecke, previously an associate research professor at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, is now a senior policy director, while Rachel Hovde is joining as director of policy. She previously served as a senior advisor at the Bureau of Industry and Security. — Sarah Kessel, who worked under former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), is now ARI's manager of government affairs, and Evan Sarnor has joined as a legislative analyst from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. CORRECTION: Thursday's edition of this newsletter gave the incorrect state for former Gov. Jim Gilmore and misidentified the division at Seven Letter that has promoted three staffers. PI regrets the error. Jobs report — Chip Kahn will step down as president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals at the end of 2025, after 24 years with the group. — Shelly O'Neill Stoneman has launched StonePoint Strategies, a strategic consulting firm. She previously was senior vice president of government affairs at Lockheed Martin. — Chelsea Blink is now legislative director for Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.). She previously was director of farm animal legislation at the ASPCA. — Gustavo Torres is retiring as executive director of CASA, after more than three decades in the role. — Jerzy Piatkowski is now counsel at Fenwick. He most recently was vice president of contracts and associate general counsel at General Dynamics Mission Systems. — Kevin Orellana will be a legislative assistant for Rep. Vince Fong (R-Calif.), handling his financial services portfolio. He previously was a legislative aide for Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.). New Joint Fundraisers None. New PACs Earnin PAC Activehours Inc. Fund (Earnin PAC) (PAC) Our Virginia PAC (Super PAC) RIGHT TECH PAC (Hybrid PAC) Taproot Collective Fund (PAC) Vets Against Trump PAC (Super PAC) New Lobbying REGISTRATIONS Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Bkv Corporation Arrow Group Consulting, LLC: Pelican Reef Of St. Augustine LLC Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: Chicanos Por La Causa Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: City Of St. Pete Beach, Fl Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: National Iamerican Indian Housing Coalition Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: Significance, Inc. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: Tampa Port Authority Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.: Treatment Alternatives For Safe Communities, Inc. Bgr Government Affairs: Ameresco, Inc. Bgr Government Affairs: Exelon Business Services Company LLC Bgr Government Affairs: Galaxy Digital Holdings Lp Bgr Government Affairs: Millennium Management LLC Bgr Government Affairs: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Bgr Government Affairs: Phantom Bgr Government Affairs: St Energy Bgr Government Affairs: Welbehealth Boundary Stone Partners: Carbonbuilt Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Pc: Bright Path Labs Capital City Consulting, LLC.: Miller Strategies, LLC On Behalf Of Merchants For America, Inc. Continental Strategy, LLC: Stubhub Inc. Greenberg Traurig, LLP: Archkey Solutions Hb Strategies: Viamericas Mercury Public Affairs, LLC: Estar Partners Mindset Advocacy, LLC: Mark Foods LLC Red Carr LLC: Team Hallahan (On Behalf Of City Of Cleveland) Riley Executive Government Solutions: Okeefe Industries Squire Patton Boggs: Bitcoin Policy Institute The Jackson Group, LLC: 47G The Jackson Group, LLC: Pelion Venture Partners The Nuclear Company: The Nuclear Company Todd Strategy Group: Glaxosmithkline LLC Williams And Jensen, Pllc: Dupont Law Firm New Lobbying Terminations Bgr Government Affairs: Grail, LLC Bgr Government Affairs: Sandvine Kiley Capitol Solutions, LLC: Deckard Technologies Kiley Capitol Solutions, LLC: Leading Builders Of America Kiley Capitol Solutions, LLC: Lowe Syndrome Association Walker Strategies: Alliance Of Health Care Sharing Ministries
Politico
27-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
Braves tap ex-Thune aides to bat down tax hike
With Daniel Lippman KEEP CHOPPING: The Atlanta Braves have added to their rotation of outside lobbyists to help the MLB franchise avoid a giant tax bill in a few years. Alston & Bird began working last month on behalf of the ball club's publicly owned parent company on 'issues related to the taxation of publicly traded professional sports teams,' according to a disclosure filing. — Joe Boddicker, a former tax counsel to Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and former tax adviser to now-Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Jane Lucas, another fellow Thune aide who also worked for President Donald Trump, are working on the account along with Jonathan Jagoda. — The Braves became the only publicly traded MLB franchise in 2023. Absent any changes, that will subject the club to a new tax provision limiting public companies from writing off the salaries of their highest-paid employees — which in this case would mean the team's star players. Atlanta's payroll is typically in the top third of the league. — The tweak is a result of President Joe Biden's 2021 pandemic relief package, which broadened existing restrictions on tax deductions for highly paid executives by extending the $1 million cap on deductions to a public company's five highest-paid employees. — The change doesn't go into effect until 2027, but it could saddle the Braves with a $19 million tax hike, Bloomberg estimated last month — a tax bill that the Braves' peers around the league don't need to worry about. — The Braves hired another lobbying firm, Atlanta-based Freeman Mathis Decisions, in February to lobby on the tax change, according to disclosure filings. The reconciliation bill passed by House Republicans last week would broaden the scope of the deduction limit, rather than rein it in — though that could change in the Senate. — Though the Braves are the only MLB franchise that stands to be hit with a tax hike as a result of the new rule, Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., the publicly owned parent company of the New York Knicks and New York Rangers, could also newly qualify under the change. Madison Square Garden paid Cozen O'Connor Public Strategies $40,000 to lobby on tax policy during the first quarter of 2025, its first lobbying payments to the firm since 2021, according to disclosure filings. Happy Monday and welcome to PI. Send K Street tips and gossip. You can add me on Signal, email me at coprysko@ and be sure to follow me on X: @caitlinoprysko. FIRST IN PI – WELLS FARGO TO DROP FORECLOSURES ON COURTOVICH: Wells Fargo is dropping three foreclosures it had put on lobbyist Jim Courtovich for two houses he owns as well as a home equity loan, Daniel reports. — The bank filed a foreclosure complaint against him saying he hadn't made his mortgage payments in recent months. Wells Fargo had loaned him $2.7 million in 2012 for a 4,600 square foot, 5-bedroom house, which Zillow says is now worth almost $5 million. — Courtovich told PI, however, that he had paid Wells Fargo $1 million two years ago but the money wasn't properly applied to his mortgages and home equity loan. Courtovich has used his house in the posh Normanstone neighborhood to entertain clients, friends, and other D.C. luminaries at lavish parties. There is a pool in the backyard and a new kitchen on the ground level. — PI reported last month that Wells Fargo was having trouble serving a foreclosure notice on his Capitol Hill townhouse after he entered into default on it in the winter. Courtovich has tangled with investors over the house as they try to get him to pay back a multimillion dollar loan to his lobbying firm. — While the issue with his investors remains outstanding, Wells Fargo is withdrawing its litigation against Courtovich. 'There were apparently accounting recording issues,' he said in a text message. 'All has been fixed and both mortgages are paid through the end of the year. At that point I will owe less than 10 percent on my home,' referring to his Normanstone house. — A Wells Fargo spokesperson said the bank is 'pleased to have worked with Mr. Courtovich to resolve this situation.' — Courtovich had a starring role in Brody and Luke Mullins' 'The Wolves of K Street' book, which recounted his connection to a Genentech lobbyist who had misappropriated company money and later committed suicide. — In late 2016, Courtovich also helped Trump ally Michael Flynn publish an op-ed on behalf of Turkey, which sparked controversy, and he has worked with numerous European financial institutions, Russian banks and foreign countries like Ethiopia, among the more than 100 clients during his career. WHAT ARE PARENTS FOR?: 'As Paul Walczak awaited sentencing early this year, his best hope for avoiding prison time rested with the newly inaugurated president. Mr. Walczak, a former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 2024 election, submitted a pardon application to President Trump around Inauguration Day. The application focused not solely on Mr. Walczak's offenses but also on the political activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago,' The New York Times' Ken Vogel writes. — 'Ms. Fago had raised millions of dollars for Mr. Trump's campaigns and those of other Republicans, the application said. It also highlighted her connections to an effort to sabotage Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s 2020 campaign by publicizing the addiction diary of his daughter Ashley Biden — an episode that drew law enforcement scrutiny.' — 'Still, weeks went by and no pardon was forthcoming, even as Mr. Trump issued clemency grants to hundreds of other allies. Then, Ms. Fago was invited to a $1-million-per-person fund-raising dinner last month that promised face-to-face access to Mr. Trump at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla. Less than three weeks after she attended the dinner, Mr. Trump signed a full and unconditional pardon.' ANNALS OF ETHICS: The Washington Post's Douglas MacMillan and Aaron Schaffer have a look today at the consulting career of Tom Homan, Trump's border czar whose recent clients have included private prison giant GEO Group, which stands to receive a massive payday from Trump's deportation efforts. — 'Before he joined the administration, border czar Tom Homan earned an undisclosed amount in fees consulting for a division of the GEO Group, one of two companies that operates the vast majority of the nation's immigrant detention facilities, according to the disclosure, which was released last week.' — 'The filing, which has not been previously reported, did not specify what work Homan performed. The document said GEO paid him more than $5,000 during the two years preceding his government appointment in January. Ethics rules do not require any more specific disclosure, and the amount Homan received could be far higher.' — Also on the ethics front: 'A Texas oil executive from Elon Musk's government efficiency team has been given sweeping powers to overhaul the federal department that manages vast tracts of resource-rich public lands, but he hasn't divested his energy investments or filed an ethics commitment to break ties with companies that pose a conflict of interest,' The Associated Press' Martha Bellisle reports. IF YOU MISSED IT OVER THE LONG WEEKEND: 'If you want to know who's running the State Department these days, it helps to peruse the website of a relatively new, conservative-leaning organization called the Ben Franklin Fellowship,' per POLITICO's Nahal Toosi. — 'The group's roster includes Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau, top officials in bureaus such as consular affairs, and even an acting undersecretary or two. The fellows include current and former members of the foreign service, as well as other international affairs specialists. — 'And while the Fellowship describes itself as nonpartisan, its right-of-center views are obvious: It emphasizes goals such as border security; opposes typical diversity, equity and inclusion practices; and advocates for the careful use of U.S. resources abroad.' Jobs report — Baillee Brown is now head of government and external affairs at Inclusive Abundance. She previously was chief of staff for Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). — Scott Weathers is now associate director of government affairs at Americans for Responsible Innovation. He previously was energy and environment policy adviser for Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) — Hannah Suh has joined the Cohen Group as chief of staff. Suh is a Biden administration alum who was previously senior adviser to the undersecretary of State for civilian security, democracy and human rights and a policy adviser on Indo-Pacific issues at the National Security Council. — Mira Rapp-Hooper will be a partner at The Asia Group. She previously was senior director for East Asia and Oceania and director for Indo-Pacific strategy at the Biden NSC. — Nick Elliott is now director at L2 Data. He previously was a director at RumbleUp. — Carl Holshouser is joining CoreWeave as vice president for government affairs. He most recently was executive vice president and head of federal policy and government relations at TechNet. — Andrew Vontz has launched One Real Voice, a boutique firm coaching political leaders on being podcast guests and hosts. He is a Strava alum. — Patrick Lohmeyer is now the vice president of international network programs and partnerships at United Way Worldwide. He previously held executive roles at numerous international development consultancies, serving most recently as CEO at LINC. — Sarah Flaim is now head of congressional affairs at Forterra. She most recently was a managing director at DCI Group, and is a Hill alum. — Jared Henderson is now a director of government affairs at Growth Energy. He previously was senior policy adviser for Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.). — Julie Cerqueira is joining the Natural Resources Defense Council as chief program officer. She most recently served as principal deputy assistant secretary for international affairs at the Energy Department and was the inaugural executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance. New Joint Fundraisers Roberson Victory Committee (SANDY ROBERSON FOR NC, Eastern North Carolina - ENCPAC) New PACs Defend the Taxpayers PAC (Super PAC) Doverwick & Associates LLC (PAC) Fighting For Democracy (Leadership PAC: John Gregory Vincent) Hanover Bancorp, Inc. PAC (PAC) LOUISIANA FREEDOM FUND (Super PAC) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FIRST (Super PAC) New Lobbying REGISTRATIONS Alston & Bird LLP: Atlanta Braves Holdings, Inc. Alston & Bird LLP: Oregon Health & Science University Baseline Strategies, LLC: Atlas Crossing On Behalf Of Deterrence Defense Inc. Dla Piper LLP (US): Coalition For Smarter Regulation Of Nicotine DLG Partners: White Star Capital USA Inc. Ferox Strategies: Rare Disease Company Coalition Fierce Government Relations: Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC Franklin Square Group, LLC: Belkin International, Inc. Icebreaker Strategies, LLC: Accelint Holdings, LLC King & Spalding LLP: Mueller Water Products, Inc. King & Spalding LLP: Prysmian Cables And Systems USA, LLC Klein Law Group Pllc: Spokane Regional Broadband Development Authority Broadlinc Maven Advocacy Partners LLC: Radiant Nuclear Mercury Public Affairs, LLC: The Kinetic Group Operations LLC Mgb Consulting: Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Port Side Strategies, LLC: Virginia Organizing Timothy R. Rupli & Associates, Inc.: Snap Finance, LLC New Lobbying Terminations Dla Piper LLP (US): Discover Financial Services, Inc. Rosemont Group: International Longshore And Warehouse Union The Madison Group: Coinbase, Inc.
CBS News
13-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Sacramento to brighten K Street corridor with new marquee-style lights
Sacramento's K Street corridor will soon dazzle with new lights. Scott Ford, the deputy director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, says soon they'll flip the switch on marquee-style lights that will be added to 38 light poles along K Street. A pilot light was installed last year in downtown, the partnership says, and enough funding has been secured over the years to make the lights a reality. The additional lighting is meant to embrace K Street's rich history with marquees and be energy-efficient by using LED lights. "They are programmable from a single control system so when the Kings are playing, you know this whole thing can go purple," Ford says. "Throughout the seasons, it can be programmed, changing dynamic LED light patterns that reflect the season." The lights are part of the K Street LED Marquee Lighting Project. Ford says the lights are meant to enhance the K Street social scene, which is already brimming with activity from restaurants to bars with the Golden 1 Center just steps away. He says it's also meant to boost pedestrian activity and help people feel safe walking down K Street. "I think that adding lighting, adding vibrancy to what is really a critical pedestrian corridor in the heart of our city, I think it's going to pay dividends in the long term for continuing to see more investment, more positive activity, and really sending the signal that K Street is the epicenter of social activity for this region," Ford said. The Downtown Sacramento Partnership also believes the lights will only add to an already evolving entertainment scene. "The idea of entertainment zones starting to come online in Sacramento, where brick-and-mortar businesses can sell to-go drinks to patrons when there are special events happening, that starts to really create a whole different feeling to this K Street corridor," Ford says Crews started installing the lights Monday morning. The lights are expected to be up and running by the end of the month.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘A multi-front war': How a lobbying heavyweight is advising universities to handle the Trump administration
President Donald Trump swept into power earlier this year and almost immediately began using his bully pulpit — and the federal government's leverage, in the form of massive amounts of funding for contracts and grants — to embark on an unprecedented pressure campaign against some of the country's oldest and most revered institutions of higher education. Universities have historically operated at somewhat of a remove from the wheeling and dealing of Washington, but the scale and speed of the upheaval — and the lack of transparency into the administration's next targets — has caught the world of higher education off guard. K Street is cashing in on the panic as schools scramble for well-connected fixers who can offer guidance on how to try and stave off some of the deepest cuts. Trump has frozen or threatened to withhold billions of dollars from universities across the U.S. unless they took steps to stamp out progressive ideology that his administration feels has run amok on college campuses and stifled conservative viewpoints. Under threat of having a crucial funding stream choked off, being grilled by Republicans in Congress, having their tax bills hiked or their tax-exempt status revoked, some universities have caved to Trump by cracking down on campus activism and scrapping programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Others have opted to fight: Monday, Harvard University said it would reject a list of demands made by the Trump administration. Trump yanked more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts from the school as a result. In response to the demand from schools, one of Washington's top-earning law and lobbying firms, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, has launched a new higher education task force to advise universities on how to navigate the whims of the Trump administration. The firm's clients include Yale University, DePaul University, Davidson College, the Baylor College of Medicine, Colorado State University and Washington University in St. Louis, among others. 'All of these universities … they don't intuitively get Washington,' says Marc Lampkin, a longtime Republican strategist who is helping lead the new task force at Brownstein. 'And so what we do is we help them understand how to navigate it, with a unique understanding about the issues that they deal with on campus.' Lampkin is leading the task force alongside Evan Corcoran, who previously served as Trump's personal attorney, and Radha Mohan, a veteran tax and education lobbyist. The three of them spoke with POLITICO Monday about how the task force is helping bridge the divide between the cosseted world of higher education and the rough and tumble realm of politics, the biggest threats facing higher education right now and how universities can hope to navigate the competing pressures in Washington and on their campuses. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Whoever wants to take this first question to start us off, do you want to just give us the backstory for how this higher education task force came together? Lampkin: It really started when the House [Education] and Workforce Committee had that infamous hearing with the two college presidents — which we were not involved in — which, by every accounting, turned out to be a disaster for the principals from these major universities who sat at the table. It was clear that they didn't understand the storm that was brewing, and that in prepping for it, they didn't anticipate some of the key things they needed to be aware of. It was certainly well-lawyered, but were they prepared to understand the politics that were swirling around the issues of these protests on campus, what the Republican Congress and their allies were looking for? And they provided in many respects all the wrong answers. It struck us then that there was a need for a unique set of combined skills: a law firm that had great legal talent, smart acumen, but also had a unique set of understanding of the politics of the moment and the relationships in and around Congress [and] the executive branch, the potential for new administration allies. We want to be able to provide this as an offering, to provide a one stop shop to be able to navigate oversight, navigate understanding the implications, the application of executive orders, et cetera. Who is involved in the task force? And what do those folks bring to the table? Lampkin: Evan Corcoran, Radha Mohan [and] myself are the center points. But then we've got other folks in the Washington office and beyond who are key support for this. Brian McGuire, who's a former senior official in the first Trump administration, who spent nearly a dozen years working in Senator [Mitch] McConnell's office in leadership roles and was a chief of staff in his personal office. Bart Reising, who worked for 10 years plus in [House Majority] Leader [Steve] Scalise's office, who gives us a broad perspective and reach around the officials in the House of Representatives. On the Democrat side, we've got Al Mottur, longtime senior Democrat political operative who can help with Senate Democrats when necessary. And we've got Nadeam Elshami, who used to be Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff. What are some of the top concerns that you've been hearing from colleges and universities? What are they looking to get out of their engagement with you? What are their top priorities and things they want to accomplish, or, conversely, things they want to protect? Mohan: I think it's actually been a mix of things, right? When the administration started, pretty quickly, especially given the events of October 7 and last year, [schools] were already walking into an environment where they were facing numerous congressional hearings. The Trump administration got started pretty quickly in terms of gearing up [the Justice Department and the Education Department's civil rights office] and other agencies to investigate institutions of higher education. And then on top of that, with the Republican majority in Congress, you also have the opportunity to legislate on this. On the House side, it's everything from the College Cost Reduction Act, which would go after colleges and universities for things like rocketing tuition costs [and] student debt, through policies such as risk-sharing. And then on the tax side, it's things like the endowment excise tax. They're looking for a firm with the political connections that can actually reach into the administration and have an in with Congress. Corcoran: The help that colleges and universities are looking for perhaps could be positioned broadly in two categories: one is reactive and one is proactive. And in terms of reactive, there are colleges and universities who look to us because of funding cuts that they've had based on recent enforcement actions. And there are also clients that have received investigative letters from the Department of Education. And then there are others who are proactively looking to navigate this new world by saying, 'How do we avoid becoming a target?' Radha mentioned the endowment tax, which has been big, the DEI executive orders. It's essentially for many of these, particularly the larger institutions, they see it as a multi-front war which involves the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, Congress. And now, particularly into this current administration, the White House itself that's taking a very active role on these things. So we can help with everything from preparing witnesses for hearings, helping colleges and universities respond to investigative requests for documents and even interviews. When you guys are bringing on a new client for this task force, what are some of the first things that you do with them? Are there any topline recommendations that you make, what are the types of things that you go over with them from the start, and what's the best way that you think that these schools should be engaging with the Trump administration on these issues? Corcoran: When we partner with an institution and try to help them develop a strategic plan that's going to be successful, it really starts with that individual institution, which has its own history, it's got its own individualized mission, it has its own unique stakeholders. It's not a wholesale, off-the-rack approach. It's really a bespoke approach. Part of the engagement with public officials, and it may be a decision whether to engage or not at a given moment, is understanding who the audience is, what tone is appropriate, what type of information is going to be important to the decision makers. And those are all things that we bring to bear at an early stage in our representation. Lampkin: All of these universities, they don't intuitively get Washington. And so what we do is we help them understand how to navigate it, with a unique understanding about the issues that they deal with on campus. You've got a president, you've got donors, you've got parents, students, the faculty senate. You've got the pressures from all of these parties around you, all the while you're now being drawn into Washington and have to face things that, for some universities, could mean the difference between succeeding and failing. Their grants and contracts and their ability to help provide financial aid are all at risk. Maybe it might be helpful to back up a little bit too. Can you talk about the nature of colleges' engagement and interaction with the federal government, [what] that usually looked like up until the past couple of years, and how has that changed under the Trump administration? Lampkin: Historically, colleges rely almost exclusively on two things: One, their trade association and the collective influencing power of the various trade associations. Separately, they also had a president or a chancellor who, when they had relationships with their members of Congress or their state or their senators, they had great sway. I think what we've seen over the last number of years [that] has really gotten more acute is that there's growing skepticism and doubt about the power of the collective. More recently, because there's some concern about what's going on on campuses, there's a skepticism about the coursework that's being taught, lack of accountability around, or understanding about the pricing of schools. And so now you've added fuel to the fire. You've got a Trump administration that has come into place with a mandate for change, and this is a place where that's particularly focused because of what we saw last fall on campuses, in part around the antisemitism activity, the campus protests, the building takeovers. There's now a confluence of the Congress having taken a long look at this, [and] now the Trump administration wanting to bring about rapid, deep change. Mohan: I think we need to look at it as both [a] danger and opportunity for the university ecosystem, right? Republicans are coming in and for decades, there has been a desire to revamp and remake higher education. There is this feeling from conservative lawmakers that institutions of higher education have an intolerance for non-liberal points of view. The motivation behind some of the policies is twofold. Part of it is punitive, and the other portion of it is reform, right? How do we actually make changes that will last not just the next three years of the administration, but decades? And I think that's where you have opportunity. You have opportunity to walk in and say, 'Listen, there are actually a number of universities that have gone loan-free, that use a very sizable percentage of their endowment to pay for things like tuition, to offset research projects that are instrumental' … to do things that I think lawmakers actually want them to do. And I think there's an opportunity to message on that, and then create legislation that actually works, and incentivizes other universities to do the same. Corcoran: So it's not just that there are policy differences that have been emphasized on this call, but the process is very different, and it's different in a way that makes knowing the key decision makers extremely important. The personalities that are involved in these key decisions that affect institutions. You know, You've got to know them, and you've got to understand how they think, how they make decisions, what's important to them, what they're trying to achieve. There's definitely a concept that the federal government is not just a benevolent patron of universities that's going to provide money without any scrutiny of what that funding is going towards. And that's changed. How do you help these universities navigate all of the competing pressures from Washington, from their students, their faculties? Princeton's president [Christopher Eisgruber] wrote in The Atlantic a couple weeks ago that the Trump administration's actions toward Columbia risk sparking 'the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare.' Would you agree with that characterization? And what is your response to schools who do feel that way and see the moves as an attack on free speech or academic freedom, or feel like they will never be able to do enough to appease the administration? Lampkin: Columbia was an extreme case because of the very prominent activity that went on on campus, but I think it certainly sent a shockwave. The thing that we can best do is try to gather intel in anticipation of how the administration and congressional oversight activities might impact [universities] if they decide that 'I won't.' If you don't cut a DEI office, if you don't adhere to the case of a maybe loosely-sourced executive order. … [University] presidents are in very difficult positions, right? You're leading complex organizations that have competing demands and pushes. Our job is to give them our political risk assessment about what happens if you don't do it. Corcoran: Putting aside for a minute the way that some institutions of higher learning have taken a hard line in terms of engagement with the current administration, our role with the task force is to help colleges and universities analyze that, consider it, develop a strategic plan and make a decision. And sometimes our advice is that you can engage with the federal government, federal government officials without sacrificing academic freedom. There's no question that right now there is a president and an administration that are taking a different interpretation of certain laws and changing many of their enforcement priorities. And institutions of higher learning can't just close their eyes to that. They've got to respond in some way, and so our job is to help them decide whether and if so, how, to engage. What kinds of feedback are you hearing from the administration when you guys are talking to them? Lampkin: The reception we have gotten is that there's still a lot of hard work to be done. Republicans believe that these universities are the training ground for left, progressive camps, and that they're resistant to change, and … are resistant to adhering to Supreme Court decisions, executive orders and getting in line. And we have to overcome that skepticism with proof points that they're willing to change. Then I think there's a pathway to de-escalate. Mohan: To that point, it's not just about getting out of the next hearing, or getting your name off one list, or prepping for the hearing that your university president has been called to testify in front of Congress, right? What lawmakers are looking for is systemic change. When you talk about showing that willingness to change, what kinds of things can you help universities come up with that show, 'we're in this for the long haul'? How do you get, whether it's the administration or people on the Hill, to trust that you're going to follow through on the changes that you're pledging to make? Lampkin: A couple of the things that we've done is there's been a lot of criticism around their reaction to last year's campus protests. Have they adopted reforms on campus about how they treat and protect their Jewish students, the latitude that they give protesters to be disruptive or not? Are they adhering to the recommendations from law enforcement and groups like the Anti-Defamation League about what creates a safe and secure atmosphere on campus? Conservative speakers should feel as tolerated and safe on campus as progressives or liberals do. And you can't have a dual standard where you bend over backwards to make sure you have great tolerance to anti-Israel protesters, but then when [conservative activist] Charlie Kirk or someone else comes on campus, they get booed off and disrupted in a way that would not make them hospitable. Do your campus conservatives in groups feel like they have a space to be able to articulate their views, even if some people on campus don't like them? So in your academic setting, are you countering all of the institutes and specialty studies, etc., that are oftentimes seen as bastions of progressive thought? Are you countering that with opportunities for conservative scholars to have a home to articulate more conservative activities? Again, you're not quieting or running roughshod over progressives, but you're providing an opportunity for students and faculty to look more at the broader issues intellectually, a place where they feel like they can have a home as well. We've made a conscious effort that we want to be good stewards to help them to understand what's going on, so they can do what this world class, number one university system in the world is very good at — [which] is teaching and developing young minds, and allowing intellectual thought.
Politico
15-04-2025
- Business
- Politico
‘A multi-front war': How a lobbying heavyweight is advising universities to handle the Trump administration
President Donald Trump swept into power earlier this year and almost immediately began using his bully pulpit — and the federal government's leverage, in the form of massive amounts of funding for contracts and grants — to embark on an unprecedented pressure campaign against some of the country's oldest and most revered institutions of higher education. Universities have historically operated at somewhat of a remove from the wheeling and dealing of Washington, but the scale and speed of the upheaval — and the lack of transparency into the administration's next targets — has caught the world of higher education off guard. K Street is cashing in on the panic as schools scramble for well-connected fixers who can offer guidance on how to try and stave off some of the deepest cuts. Trump has frozen or threatened to withhold billions of dollars from universities across the U.S. unless they took steps to stamp out progressive ideology that his administration feels has run amok on college campuses and stifled conservative viewpoints. Under threat of having a crucial funding stream choked off, being grilled by Republicans in Congress, having their tax bills hiked or their tax-exempt status revoked, some universities have caved to Trump by cracking down on campus activism and scrapping programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Others have opted to fight: Monday, Harvard University said it would reject a list of demands made by the Trump administration. Trump yanked more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts from the school as a result. In response to the demand from schools, one of Washington's top-earning law and lobbying firms, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, has launched a new higher education task force to advise universities on how to navigate the whims of the Trump administration. The firm's clients include Yale University, DePaul University, Davidson College, the Baylor College of Medicine, Colorado State University and Washington University in St. Louis, among others. 'All of these universities … they don't intuitively get Washington,' says Marc Lampkin, a longtime Republican strategist who is helping lead the new task force at Brownstein. 'And so what we do is we help them understand how to navigate it, with a unique understanding about the issues that they deal with on campus.' Lampkin is leading the task force alongside Evan Corcoran, who previously served as Trump's personal attorney, and Radha Mohan, a veteran tax and education lobbyist. The three of them spoke with POLITICO Monday about how the task force is helping bridge the divide between the cosseted world of higher education and the rough and tumble realm of politics, the biggest threats facing higher education right now and how universities can hope to navigate the competing pressures in Washington and on their campuses. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Whoever wants to take this first question to start us off, do you want to just give us the backstory for how this higher education task force came together? Lampkin: It really started when the House [Education] and Workforce Committee had that infamous hearing with the two college presidents — which we were not involved in — which, by every accounting, turned out to be a disaster for the principals from these major universities who sat at the table. It was clear that they didn't understand the storm that was brewing, and that in prepping for it, they didn't anticipate some of the key things they needed to be aware of. It was certainly well-lawyered, but were they prepared to understand the politics that were swirling around the issues of these protests on campus, what the Republican Congress and their allies were looking for? And they provided in many respects all the wrong answers. It struck us then that there was a need for a unique set of combined skills: a law firm that had great legal talent, smart acumen, but also had a unique set of understanding of the politics of the moment and the relationships in and around Congress [and] the executive branch, the potential for new administration allies. We want to be able to provide this as an offering, to provide a one stop shop to be able to navigate oversight, navigate understanding the implications, the application of executive orders, et cetera. Who is involved in the task force? And what do those folks bring to the table? Lampkin: Evan Corcoran, Radha Mohan [and] myself are the center points. But then we've got other folks in the Washington office and beyond who are key support for this. Brian McGuire, who's a former senior official in the first Trump administration, who spent nearly a dozen years working in Senator [Mitch] McConnell's office in leadership roles and was a chief of staff in his personal office. Bart Reising, who worked for 10 years plus in [House Majority] Leader [Steve] Scalise's office, who gives us a broad perspective and reach around the officials in the House of Representatives. On the Democrat side, we've got Al Mottur, longtime senior Democrat political operative who can help with Senate Democrats when necessary. And we've got Nadeam Elshami, who used to be Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff. What are some of the top concerns that you've been hearing from colleges and universities? What are they looking to get out of their engagement with you? What are their top priorities and things they want to accomplish, or, conversely, things they want to protect? Mohan: I think it's actually been a mix of things, right? When the administration started, pretty quickly, especially given the events of October 7 and last year, [schools] were already walking into an environment where they were facing numerous congressional hearings. The Trump administration got started pretty quickly in terms of gearing up [the Justice Department and the Education Department's civil rights office] and other agencies to investigate institutions of higher education. And then on top of that, with the Republican majority in Congress, you also have the opportunity to legislate on this. On the House side, it's everything from the College Cost Reduction Act, which would go after colleges and universities for things like rocketing tuition costs [and] student debt, through policies such as risk-sharing. And then on the tax side, it's things like the endowment excise tax. They're looking for a firm with the political connections that can actually reach into the administration and have an in with Congress. Corcoran: The help that colleges and universities are looking for perhaps could be positioned broadly in two categories: one is reactive and one is proactive. And in terms of reactive, there are colleges and universities who look to us because of funding cuts that they've had based on recent enforcement actions. And there are also clients that have received investigative letters from the Department of Education. And then there are others who are proactively looking to navigate this new world by saying, 'How do we avoid becoming a target?' Radha mentioned the endowment tax, which has been big, the DEI executive orders. It's essentially for many of these, particularly the larger institutions, they see it as a multi-front war which involves the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, Congress. And now, particularly into this current administration, the White House itself that's taking a very active role on these things. So we can help with everything from preparing witnesses for hearings, helping colleges and universities respond to investigative requests for documents and even interviews. When you guys are bringing on a new client for this task force, what are some of the first things that you do with them? Are there any topline recommendations that you make, what are the types of things that you go over with them from the start, and what's the best way that you think that these schools should be engaging with the Trump administration on these issues? Corcoran: When we partner with an institution and try to help them develop a strategic plan that's going to be successful, it really starts with that individual institution, which has its own history, it's got its own individualized mission, it has its own unique stakeholders. It's not a wholesale, off-the-rack approach. It's really a bespoke approach. Part of the engagement with public officials, and it may be a decision whether to engage or not at a given moment, is understanding who the audience is, what tone is appropriate, what type of information is going to be important to the decision makers. And those are all things that we bring to bear at an early stage in our representation. Lampkin: All of these universities, they don't intuitively get Washington. And so what we do is we help them understand how to navigate it, with a unique understanding about the issues that they deal with on campus. You've got a president, you've got donors, you've got parents, students, the faculty senate. You've got the pressures from all of these parties around you, all the while you're now being drawn into Washington and have to face things that, for some universities, could mean the difference between succeeding and failing. Their grants and contracts and their ability to help provide financial aid are all at risk. Maybe it might be helpful to back up a little bit too. Can you talk about the nature of colleges' engagement and interaction with the federal government, [what] that usually looked like up until the past couple of years, and how has that changed under the Trump administration? Lampkin: Historically, colleges rely almost exclusively on two things: One, their trade association and the collective influencing power of the various trade associations. Separately, they also had a president or a chancellor who, when they had relationships with their members of Congress or their state or their senators, they had great sway. I think what we've seen over the last number of years [that] has really gotten more acute is that there's growing skepticism and doubt about the power of the collective. More recently, because there's some concern about what's going on on campuses, there's a skepticism about the coursework that's being taught, lack of accountability around, or understanding about the pricing of schools. And so now you've added fuel to the fire. You've got a Trump administration that has come into place with a mandate for change, and this is a place where that's particularly focused because of what we saw last fall on campuses, in part around the antisemitism activity, the campus protests, the building takeovers. There's now a confluence of the Congress having taken a long look at this, [and] now the Trump administration wanting to bring about rapid, deep change. Mohan: I think we need to look at it as both [a] danger and opportunity for the university ecosystem, right? Republicans are coming in and for decades, there has been a desire to revamp and remake higher education. There is this feeling from conservative lawmakers that institutions of higher education have an intolerance for non-liberal points of view. The motivation behind some of the policies is twofold. Part of it is punitive, and the other portion of it is reform, right? How do we actually make changes that will last not just the next three years of the administration, but decades? And I think that's where you have opportunity. You have opportunity to walk in and say, 'Listen, there are actually a number of universities that have gone loan-free, that use a very sizable percentage of their endowment to pay for things like tuition, to offset research projects that are instrumental' … to do things that I think lawmakers actually want them to do. And I think there's an opportunity to message on that, and then create legislation that actually works, and incentivizes other universities to do the same. Corcoran: So it's not just that there are policy differences that have been emphasized on this call, but the process is very different, and it's different in a way that makes knowing the key decision makers extremely important. The personalities that are involved in these key decisions that affect institutions. You know, You've got to know them, and you've got to understand how they think, how they make decisions, what's important to them, what they're trying to achieve. There's definitely a concept that the federal government is not just a benevolent patron of universities that's going to provide money without any scrutiny of what that funding is going towards. And that's changed. How do you help these universities navigate all of the competing pressures from Washington, from their students, their faculties? Princeton's president [Christopher Eisgruber] wrote in The Atlantic a couple weeks ago that the Trump administration's actions toward Columbia risk sparking 'the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare.' Would you agree with that characterization? And what is your response to schools who do feel that way and see the moves as an attack on free speech or academic freedom, or feel like they will never be able to do enough to appease the administration? Lampkin: Columbia was an extreme case because of the very prominent activity that went on on campus, but I think it certainly sent a shockwave. The thing that we can best do is try to gather intel in anticipation of how the administration and congressional oversight activities might impact [universities] if they decide that 'I won't.' If you don't cut a DEI office, if you don't adhere to the case of a maybe loosely-sourced executive order. … [University] presidents are in very difficult positions, right? You're leading complex organizations that have competing demands and pushes. Our job is to give them our political risk assessment about what happens if you don't do it. Corcoran : Putting aside for a minute the way that some institutions of higher learning have taken a hard line in terms of engagement with the current administration, our role with the task force is to help colleges and universities analyze that, consider it, develop a strategic plan and make a decision. And sometimes our advice is that you can engage with the federal government, federal government officials without sacrificing academic freedom. There's no question that right now there is a president and an administration that are taking a different interpretation of certain laws and changing many of their enforcement priorities. And institutions of higher learning can't just close their eyes to that. They've got to respond in some way, and so our job is to help them decide whether and if so, how, to engage. What kinds of feedback are you hearing from the administration when you guys are talking to them? Lampkin: The reception we have gotten is that there's still a lot of hard work to be done. Republicans believe that these universities are the training ground for left, progressive camps, and that they're resistant to change, and … are resistant to adhering to Supreme Court decisions, executive orders and getting in line. And we have to overcome that skepticism with proof points that they're willing to change. Then I think there's a pathway to de-escalate. Mohan: To that point, it's not just about getting out of the next hearing, or getting your name off one list, or prepping for the hearing that your university president has been called to testify in front of Congress, right? What lawmakers are looking for is systemic change. When you talk about showing that willingness to change, what kinds of things can you help universities come up with that show, 'we're in this for the long haul'? How do you get, whether it's the administration or people on the Hill, to trust that you're going to follow through on the changes that you're pledging to make? Lampkin: A couple of the things that we've done is there's been a lot of criticism around their reaction to last year's campus protests. Have they adopted reforms on campus about how they treat and protect their Jewish students, the latitude that they give protesters to be disruptive or not? Are they adhering to the recommendations from law enforcement and groups like the Anti-Defamation League about what creates a safe and secure atmosphere on campus? Conservative speakers should feel as tolerated and safe on campus as progressives or liberals do. And you can't have a dual standard where you bend over backwards to make sure you have great tolerance to anti-Israel protesters, but then when [conservative activist] Charlie Kirk or someone else comes on campus, they get booed off and disrupted in a way that would not make them hospitable. Do your campus conservatives in groups feel like they have a space to be able to articulate their views, even if some people on campus don't like them? So in your academic setting, are you countering all of the institutes and specialty studies, etc., that are oftentimes seen as bastions of progressive thought? Are you countering that with opportunities for conservative scholars to have a home to articulate more conservative activities? Again, you're not quieting or running roughshod over progressives, but you're providing an opportunity for students and faculty to look more at the broader issues intellectually, a place where they feel like they can have a home as well. We've made a conscious effort that we want to be good stewards to help them to understand what's going on, so they can do what this world class, number one university system in the world is very good at — [which] is teaching and developing young minds, and allowing intellectual thought.
