Latest news with #Rifkind
Boston Globe
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The courage of Mike Pence
But since Jan. 20, when Donald Trump took office, I'm now regularly asked why people of any party or professional or educational background aren't standing up. Advertisement Why didn't ABC stand up for journalistic independence instead of Why didn't the mega international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison stand up for its hiring autonomy instead of agreeing Why didn't The answer is that standing up for the truth, or standing up for principle, can be a scary, self-damaging prospect. It can mean intimidation, loss of money, and legal persecution. It can mean loss of friends, death threats, and diminished job prospects. And there's no certain benefit. Advertisement As the nation is learning, it's the rare person or organization that will stand up. No matter the power. No matter the money. It's in this light that we should view the actions of Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, for refusing to overturn the results of the presidential election. He did what ABC, Paul Weiss, and Columbia University feared to do. And he did it when the stakes were even higher — the Constitution, the truth, and the peaceful transfer of power were being threatened. It's why Caroline Kennedy and Jack Schlossberg will present Pence with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award on May 4 in Boston. From 2021 to 2024, the Republican Party needed more Mike Pences. They didn't emerge. As a result, the moral character of the party has been damaged, perhaps irrevocably. Now, in 2025, the whole country needs more Mike Pences before the moral character of the United States is damaged by acts that would have been unthinkable in previous presidential administrations: betraying allies and cozying up to brutal dictators, pardoning petty criminals, brazenly defying federal courts, and ignoring constitutional rights. The day after I lost my 2024 reelection in Arizona's Republican primary primary for Maricopa County recorder, I received a call from Pence, who encouraged me to keep standing up for the truth and for the Constitution. It meant more to me than any other call because whatever he was asking me to do, whatever he was asking me to sacrifice, and whatever courage he was asking me to show, he'd already done on a much larger scale. Advertisement Just as Pence encouraged me to 'stay in the fight,' I am hopeful that this year's Profile in Courage can inspire this much-needed type of courage. The courage of Mike Pence.
Mint
28-04-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump's first 100 days: Controversial decisions on DEI, employee layoffs, ending Birthright Citizenship, and more
In his first 100 days of a second term, US President Donald Trump made several controversial decisions that have sparked widespread debate across the political and social spectrum. These decisions have touched upon issues of diversity, civil rights, foreign diplomacy, and education, marking a defining period in his presidency. Here are some key actions and policies that have captured attention: One of Trump's first major actions was the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal government agencies and the military. These programs, designed to address the nation's history of racial inequality, were immediately scrapped, citing them as "divisive." Trump also moved to target DEI programs at private law firms, public universities, and other institutions that receive federal funding or rely on federal approvals. This move has sparked backlash, with many arguing that it undermines efforts to create a more inclusive society. Trump's administration also implemented a massive downsizing of federal workers. Tens of thousands of employees were either laid off or offered buyouts. These layoffs came as part of a broader federal workforce reduction initiative, which Trump framed as necessary to curb government inefficiency. In another significant move, Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This controversial executive order was immediately challenged in court, with the issue now headed to the US Supreme Court for a final decision. Trump targeted several elite law firms, accusing them of not supporting his administration's policies. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP became the first of many firms to agree to provide approximately $1 billion worth of free legal work for projects Trump and his administration support. However, other law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, refused Trump's demands and have filed lawsuits against the administration, bringing these legal issues into the courts. A key environmental policy change came when Trump opened a vast Pacific Ocean reserve, 750 miles west of Hawaii, to commercial fishing. The reserve, originally established by President George W. Bush and expanded under former President Barack Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles, had been protected to preserve endangered sea turtles and coral atolls. Trump's move to lift these protections has sparked concern among environmentalists about the future of marine life in the area. In a move impacting the LGBTQ+ community, Trump signed an executive order banning transgender student athletes from competing in women's sports. The order has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ advocates and supporters of gender equality, who argue it undermines the rights of transgender individuals. Trump's administration also issued guidance to states, directing them to cease using Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors. This decision, part of Trump's broader push to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, has drawn strong opposition from advocates for transgender rights. In a highly controversial moment in international relations, President Trump reportedly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, a dramatic break from traditional diplomatic decorum. Trump's harsh treatment of Zelensky and subsequent actions led to a significant shift in US diplomacy, raising concerns about America's stance on foreign relations and its commitment to supporting global allies. Trump also clashed with Harvard University over the school's refusal to comply with his administration's demands. The administration threatened to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding and stripped the university of its tax-exempt status. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the threat undermined the school's academic independence. First Published: 29 Apr 2025, 03:48 AM IST
New York Times
16-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them.
When some of the nation's biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans. Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do. Over the last week, he has suggested that the firms will be drafted into helping him negotiate trade deals. He has mused about having them help with his goal of reviving the coal industry. And he has hinted that he sees the promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services that he has extracted from the elite law firms — including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — as a legal war chest to be used as he wishes. 'Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump: $100 million, another $100 million for damages that they've done,' Mr. Trump said at an event last week with coal miners, without specifying what he meant by damages. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump's political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been widely criticized, as they are seen by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic. Four firms whom Mr. Trump leveled executive orders against have fought them in court, all quickly receiving rulings from federal judges who temporarily halted them. But now that nine firms have agreed to deals and committed to nearly $1 billion worth of pro bono legal work, some Trump advisers have started having discussions about a range of options for what the firms' lawyers can be deployed to work on, according to two people briefed on the matter. That work could include sending the lawyers to help Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency or deploying them to aid the Justice Department, they said. White House officials believe that some of the pro bono legal work could even be used toward representing Mr. Trump or his allies if they became ensnared in investigations, according to the two people. Asked about what Mr. Trump would seek from the firms, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the firms had 'committed to hundreds of millions in pro bono work and other free legal services' that should be put to the 'best uses' for the American people. 'These agreements are historic, unprecedented and fully binding,' she said. 'The president and his administration fully expect the law firms to live up to their commitments, and have received no indication otherwise.' The agreements, which Mr. Trump announced on his social media site, appear to leave room for interpretation. It is unclear whether the firms even signed formal written deals spelling out the terms, or if they were essentially handshake agreements. It is also not clear how hard and how far Mr. Trump will push the notion that those deals now leave many of the nation's biggest, most prestigious and best-resourced firms at his beck and call. There is no indication yet that he has sought to deploy any of them on a particular issue. But the emerging gap between what the firms initially thought they agreed to and what Mr. Trump says they can be used for shows how the deals did little to insulate them from his whims. Further demands on the firms from Mr. Trump could raise the potential for conflicts with paying clients and could further fuel internal dissension. 'They thought they made one-shot deals which they would fulfill,' said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who was an author of a paper that called executive orders targeting the firms unconstitutional retaliatory measures. 'But the administration seems to think that they have subjected these firms to indentured servitude.' All nine firms that reached deals with Mr. Trump declined to comment or did not respond. The other firms that made deals include Latham & Watkins; Milbank; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; A & O Shearman; Kirkland & Ellis; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. One lawyer directly involved in some of the agreements said he feared that Mr. Trump's comments could lead to the deals unraveling. Leaders of some of the firms have seen Mr. Trump's comments in recent days and are just hoping that Mr. Trump will not follow through and press them to take on work on behalf of the administration, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter. Although judges have temporarily barred executive orders issued by Mr. Trump against four firms from going into effect, raising doubts about their constitutionality, corporate lawyers at Paul Weiss were so fearful of simply appearing at odds with the administration that they pushed the firm to settle instead of file a lawsuit. If the firms that made deals rebuffed new demands from Mr. Trump, that would force the president to decide whether he believed that the firms were in violation of the agreement and whether to level new executive orders against them. Mr. Trump was first to announce all of the arrangements on his terms, on his social media platform Truth Social. The firms said little publicly, and communicated only over internal firm emails what their thinking about the terms of the agreement had been. The uncertainty over the existence of formal contracts has left unclear what if any enforcement mechanisms there might be. At Paul Weiss and Skadden, some lawyers are concerned that a showdown with the White House is inevitable. If they are pushed to provide legal work beyond what they agreed to, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential matters, some lawyers are expected to quit. Two people said that Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, was very clear with the firm's top leadership that his agreement with Mr. Trump was essentially a codification of work that Paul Weiss already does, a message echoed by leaders of other firms about their agreements. Mr. Karp did suggest to the White House, according to two people briefed on the matter, that Paul Weiss do work for a potential U.S. sovereign wealth fund. In internal communications with their employees, several of the settling firms said the pro bono commitments they agreed to are consistent with free legal services they already provide. In a firmwide email, leaders at Kirkland emphasized that the 'firm will continue to determine which matters we take on both pro bono and otherwise — consistent with our nonpartisan mind-set,' according to a copy of the message reviewed by The New York Times. In an email to its staff, A & O Shearman, which also reached a deal with the White House last week, said the firm was 'completely free to choose whether or not we wish to work on any particular pro bono matter.' Jeremy London, an executive partner at Skadden, struck a similar tone in explaining the deal in a firmwide email, saying that the firm had agreed to commit $100 million of pro bono work that 'the president and Skadden both support,' among others, according to the email reviewed by The Times. Some lawyers at Skadden clung to that line in Mr. London's email, believing that it could ultimately protect the firm from being strong-armed into doing certain work, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. As these law firms navigate the shifting terms of their agreements with Mr. Trump, they are also contending with criticism from within. Much of the loudest disapproval has come from some of the associates, typically younger lawyers who do not have any sway in the firm's decision-making but often do the bulk of the essential work. Within days of the deals being announced at Skadden, Paul Weiss, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland, a few quit their jobs, posting their resignations on LinkedIn. Any work for the administration that gets into policy positions could create conflicts with a firm's big corporate clients — especially if those clients' interests are at odds with those of the administration. A group of legal ethics experts made this very point in a so-called amicus brief filed on Friday in support of two law firms that opted to take the Trump administration to court after being hit with an executive order. And if the administration seeks to require any of the firms to do work for the Justice Department, those that have cases before the department could lose clients that are under federal investigation. 'A firm that can survive only by staying in the president's good graces,' the professors wrote in their amicus brief, 'has incentives that conflict with its lawyers' stringent fiduciary duties to remain loyal to the interests of their clients, exercise independent judgment, and be truthful and candid in all dealings with the courts.'
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Law firm Paul Weiss's pro bono leader resigns after Trump deal
By Nate Raymond BOSTON (Reuters) - The head of the pro bono practice at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said on Wednesday he was resigning from the Wall Street law firm just weeks after it struck a deal with Republican U.S. President Donald Trump to escape an executive order imperiling its business. Steven Banks, the former commissioner of New York City's social services agency, in a statement said he was leaving Paul Weiss to turn his attention to representing the Coalition for the Homeless with the Legal Aid Society. His resignation came after Paul Weiss on March 20 reached a deal with the White House for Trump to lift an executive order that targeted the firm. The deal included a requirement for the firm to donate $40 million in free legal work, or pro bono services, to support mutually agreed-upon projects. Banks, 68, said his "time to make a difference as a lawyer is narrowing." "This has been weighing on me since the November election," Banks said. "At this historical moment, I know that I belong back on the front lines fighting for the things that I have believed in since I first walked in the door of the Legal Aid Society as a staff attorney in 1981." The New York Times first reported the news. Banks who joined the firm in 2022 after working in former Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration. Before that, he had led the Legal Aid Society, a legal aid organization. Paul Weiss thanked Banks for his service. "We remain committed to providing impactful pro bono legal assistance to individuals and organizations in need," the firm said. Paul Weiss is among several law firms with ties to attorneys who have investigated Trump or been involved in challenges to his policies that have been targeted with executive orders aimed at restricting their business with the federal government. Three other law firms have reached deals like that of Paul Weiss, with pledges to similarly donate legal services. Trump at an event on Tuesday suggested that he may use some of those firms to help the coal industry with leasing and in negotiations over tariffs. Democrats and other lawyers have assailed law firms for striking such deals rather than fighting them in court, as three other firms are doing. Paul Weiss's deal also called for it to not to engage in illegal diversity-related employment practices.
Reuters
10-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Law firm Paul Weiss's pro bono leader resigns after Trump deal
BOSTON, April 9 (Reuters) - The head of the pro bono practice at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said on Wednesday he was resigning from the Wall Street law firm just weeks after it struck a deal with Republican U.S. President Donald Trump to escape an executive order imperiling its business. Steven Banks, the former commissioner of New York City's social services agency, in a statement said he was leaving Paul Weiss to turn his attention to representing the Coalition for the Homeless with the Legal Aid Society. His resignation came after Paul Weiss on March 20 reached a deal with the White House for Trump to lift an executive order that targeted the firm. The deal included a requirement for the firm to donate $40 million in free legal work, or pro bono services, to support mutually agreed-upon projects. Banks, 68, said his "time to make a difference as a lawyer is narrowing." "This has been weighing on me since the November election," Banks said. "At this historical moment, I know that I belong back on the front lines fighting for the things that I have believed in since I first walked in the door of the Legal Aid Society as a staff attorney in 1981." The New York Times first reported the news. Banks who joined the firm in 2022 after working in former Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration. Before that, he had led the Legal Aid Society, a legal aid organization. Paul Weiss thanked Banks for his service. "We remain committed to providing impactful pro bono legal assistance to individuals and organizations in need," the firm said. Paul Weiss is among several law firms with ties to attorneys who have investigated Trump or been involved in challenges to his policies that have been targeted with executive orders aimed at restricting their business with the federal government. Three other law firms have reached deals like that of Paul Weiss, with pledges to similarly donate legal services. Trump at an event on Tuesday suggested that he may use some of those firms to help the coal industry with leasing and in negotiations over tariffs. Democrats and other lawyers have assailed law firms for striking such deals rather than fighting them in court, as three other firms are doing. Paul Weiss's deal also called for it to not to engage in illegal diversity-related employment practices.
