Stop Making Excuses for Not Fighting Trump
The capitulations and acquiescence we’ve seen so far will only make opposition more difficult down the road.
Last night, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is quietly narrowing the scope of the tariffs it plans to roll out on April 2; this morning, we’re seeing a cheerful pre-bell surge in investor markets. If only there were some correlation here our policymakers could take some lessons from. Happy Monday.
No Excuse
by William Kristol
Among those who might be expected to stand up against Donald Trump’s authoritarianism, the hills are alive with the sound of excuses.
You’re an elected official. The Trump administration has rounded up individuals and sent them, without any due process and with much carelessness about who’s been seized, to a mega-prison in El Salvador. The administration is boasting about what it’s done and heralding it a prelude to further actions in the same vein.
You’re thinking of condemning these truly grotesque violations of constitutional rights and human decency. Maybe I should say this isn’t right?
Whoa, Nellie! Not so fast, your political advisers hasten to instruct you. The polls on this issue aren’t great. This really isn’t the hill to die on.
You take their advice. But you tell yourself, and you assure others, that of course you will fight one day—on some other hill, on some faraway hill, some time far in the future.
But to fight now? Bad idea. That would simply play into Trump’s hands. After all, Trump and his allies are good at fighting. If you try to do something, there’s a risk they’ll turn it against you. Whereas if you say nothing, nothing can be used against you.
You might worry for a second that silence and acquiescence just plays into Trump’s hands. But you’re not a sophisticated Democratic operative. So you take their advice.
And anyway, there’s a better plan. That plan is that, eventually, Trump will become less popular. Then, the public will rise up. And then you can speak up. It all works out.
It also works out if you’re in the private sector. In fact, if you’re the head of a huge law firm, capitulation isn’t just a regrettable necessity, it’s your duty. You’re acting in the best interests of your clients. It would be wrong and irresponsible to act otherwise.
What’s more, No one in the wider world can appreciate how stressful it is to confront an executive order like this until one is directed at you.
The people in the “wider world”—those serving in the military or waiting tables or cleaning offices at Paul Weiss—they just can’t appreciate the stress that comes from occupying that corner office at 51st and 6th.
Ugh.
All of these excuses—and there are many more!—are distasteful. But what’s worse is that they make it easier and more likely that others will capitulate. They make it seem that you’re kind of a chump if you actually fight Trump’s authoritarian takeover. The excuses offered for capitulation increase the damage done by capitulation.
As usual, Shakespeare saw all. Here’s Pembroke in Act IV, Scene 2 of King John:
And oftentimes excusing of a fault
Doth make the fault the worse by th’ excuse,
As patches set upon a little breach
Discredit more in hiding of the fault
Than did the fault before it was so patched.
The excuses offered by our elites for not standing up to authoritarianism have the effect of helping the authoritarians gain further ground.
But not to fear! One day—some day—our leaders will surely discover a hill worth fighting on. Won’t they? Won’t they?
Reverse Lawfare
by Andrew Egger
Donald Trump takes one little trip to the Kennedy Center, and suddenly I’ve got showtunes on the brain. Specifically Les Miserables, at the third-act moment when law-and-order cop Inspector Javert’s moral universe is upended: “The law is inside-out,” he cries, “the world is upside-down!”
Not long ago, the law was a bulwark against the post-truth world of Trumpism. The law stood fast against Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election. It was grinding slowly toward holding him accountable for his various crimes, proven and alleged. It extracted a $787 million settlement from Fox News for its (alleged!) lying about Dominion voting machines. And late last year, it compelled GOP personality Dinesh D’Souza and his network, Salem Media Group, to retract their hugely influential piece of election poppycock, 2,000 Mules.
Last December, D’Souza issued an apology to Mark Andrews, a man whom he had accused in his film of criminally trafficking ballots—and who had subsequently sued him for defamation. D’Souza said he was apologizing not as part of a settlement agreement, but “because it is the right thing to do, given what we have now learned.”
But that was under the old regime. Now, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who hasn’t been shy about going after law firms that have the audacity to take on GOP personalities. And so D’Souza is trading in his faux remorse for a new posture: begging the White House to spare some retribution for a firm that’s bedeviled him.
“Skadden Arps is the firm engaged in systematic lawfare against ‘2000 Mules,’” D’Souza raged, tagging Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and FBI Director Kash Patel in his X post. “They have a army [sic] of 17 attorneys working pro-bono against me. I have 2 lawyers. The Left’s game is to ruin us through protracted, costly litigation.”
Shadow President Elon Musk was happy to turn a sympathetic ear. “Skadden,” he posted, “this needs to stop now.”
This could be an idle threat from Musk. It could also become official U.S. policy in the blink of an eye: Represent plaintiffs suing Dinesh D’Souza and get your law firm nuked from orbit. In our brave new world, it may be less dangerous to defame somebody in a falsehood-crammed movie than it is to represent the defamed in court.
AROUND THE BULWARK
Before Mahmoud Khalil, There Was Harry Bridges… History has a sad way of repeating itself, Clay Risen writes, reminding readers of the repeated attempts to deport the mid-century labor leader, a preview of today.
Trump’s Not Just Attacking Law Firms… He’s assaulting the rule of law, argue Austin Sarat and Lauren Stiller Rikleen.
Cruelty and Indecision… The pain and damage are piling up, as Jill Lawrence documents. Will Republicans next raid Social Security and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts?
Quick Hits
NO PRO-DEMOCRACY JUDGES ALLOWED: “Trump attacks judge who displeases him” is quickly becoming a dog-bites-man headline. But Trump’s latest strike on Judge James Boasberg is particularly noteworthy:
This Judge is almost as conflicted (actually, not even close!) as the Judge whose daughter made Millions of Dollars representing Biden/Harris against me, while her father presided over a Fake Case against me, and refused to RECUSE himself. He should be disbarred! Crooked Alvin Bragg was the D.A. in the case. They put me under a GAG ORDER so that I could not talk about it. Miscarriage of justice!
For starters, look: This man’s brain is just soup. The free-association on display is incredible. Half-formed (and inaccurate) grievances pile up faster than he can get them out; he starts off posting about Boasberg; gets sidetracked into a rant about Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over his New York hush-money felony convictions; and ends up kvetching about the gag order he was placed under during those proceedings.
What’s particularly notable, though, is what prompted the rant: an article from the right-wing blog Just the News that accused Boasberg of taking a “junket to event with anti-Trump speakers.” The blog muttered ominously that the conference last year, part of the Rodel Institute’s Judicial Fellowship, had panels on the state of democracy and judges’ roles in democracy—“a theme that echoed the Democrat Party’s 2024 stated mission of saving democracy.” The blog also emphasized that Rodel received funding from foundations that had criticized Trump actions elsewhere, including his actions leading up to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th.
The sleight of hand here is obvious. Over the years, Trump’s open lawlessness has drawn stern condemnations from a host of staid, nonpartisan groups. Trump allies then turn around and argue that proves the groups are partisan hacks, and that anyone associated with them is tainted. This judge attended a conference that said good things about democracy? Sounds like DNC agitprop to me!
THE BULLIES GO ABROAD: CNN reports that they’re still doing the Greenland thing:
Greenland’s prime minister said a planned visit to the island by US officials, including second lady Usha Vance, is “highly aggressive,” plunging relations to a new low after President Donald Trump vowed to annex the autonomous Danish territory. . . .
“What is the national security adviser doing in Greenland? The only purpose is to demonstrate power over us,” [Prime Minister Mute B.] Egede said. “His mere presence in Greenland will no doubt fuel American belief in Trump’s mission—and the pressure will increase.” . . .
“I think we’re going to get it one way or the other,” Trump said during remarks to a joint session of Congress earlier this month.
With everything else going on, the Greenland story may seem like a sideshow. But as we wrote back in January, that doesn’t mean Trump isn’t serious about it. JD Vance, on Sunday, declared that Denmark, which counts Greenland as a self-governing territory under its kingdom, was not being a “good ally.”
Trump’s interest in aggressive national expansion springs from the core of his politics. As we wrote then: “It’s the blossoming of the same deep, central impulse that’s driven him throughout his first election and his return to the presidency: Whom can I dominate, and who is going to stop me?”
Cheap Shots
If your brain runs on pure grievance, it’s hard ever to be really happy. You can get yourself elected president and subsequently appoint yourself national god-king, and you’ll still find yourself spending your Sunday evening fuming about a bad portrait of you that you saw online:
To be fair: The portrait is pretty funny.
Nothing says "I consider myself a monarch" like ranting about an unflattering oil painting.
I've been truly amazed at the depth of the kowtowing. The richest and most powerful seem almost eager to bow down. Seriously--Columbia University, e.g., is so rich in real estate holdings. Can't they afford to lose some federal funding? Paul Weiss? I used to think it was conspiracy theory think to believe there was a cabal among the people at the top of the food chain, but it's now clear to me that it's true.