Trump Tries to Destroy Another Law Firm He Hates

There are many ways that Donald Trump is trying to replace the rule of law with rule by decree. The only reason he hasn't openly said something like "L'État, c'est moi" is that he doesn't speak French and Oliver Cromwell never said something so pithy.

Now Trump is trying to destroy a third law firm. First he went after Covington & Burling because they are defending former special counsel Jack Smith. They simply conceded defeat and will lose a lot of business defending clients in cases requiring security clearances, which they no longer have. Then he did the same thing to Perkins and Coie. Only they didn't give up. They tried to find a law firm that would defend them. Several were scared and turned them down. We know that people who defend themselves in court are fools, but we didn't realize that even applied to the biggest law firms with over 1,000 highly talented lawyers. Eventually Williams & Connelly agreed to take the case, and a judge almost immediately shot Trump down in a scathing preliminary ruling.

Now #3 is up. Trump has signed a new XO stripping the security clearances of the lawyers at Paul, Weiss—another top white shoe law firm. He specifically singled out one of their attorneys, Mark Pomerantz, who had previously led an investigation of him when Pomerantz was with the Manhattan DA's office.

These attacks are likely to continue. They have multiple purposes. First, Trump wants to thumb his nose at the rule of law and show that it is no longer applicable. Second, he wants to punish law firms that defend people he hates, as a crude and blatant form of punishment. Taking away all their security clearances eliminates their ability to work on complex national security cases. Banning them from entering federal property (like courtrooms) makes it impossible for them to defend clients in any federal case. The clear intention here is to destroy the firm. Trump always thinks of money first, so when he wants to punish someone, the first thing he thinks of is how to hurt them financially.

Third, these attacks are a signal to all law firms and all lawyers that if they defend anyone he hates, he will destroy them. So when he has AG Pam Bondi indict everyone he hates, from Liz Cheney down to normal DoJ lawyers who were assigned to work on the Jan. 6 case, they won't be able to find a lawyer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases, but is silent about what happens if every lawyer in the country is so scared of Trump that he or she refuses to take the case. Then the accused will probably have to go to prison for life unless he or she gets a jury with one sympathetic member who simply refuses to vote guilty, no matter what the DoJ concocts as facts. It's a slim reed.

Paul, Weiss can probably get Williams & Connolly to defend them since they have nothing to lose at this point. If the case lands before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell again, as did the Perkins & Coie case, she will be beyond livid at Trump, but she is smart enough not to let that show. Her ruling will be scathing nevertheless. Judge Tanya Chutkan probably wouldn't be much better for Trump. There are 19 judges in the D.C. District Court, of whom 9 were appointed by Democratic presidents, plus two Ronald Reagan appointees, four George W. Bush appointees, and four Trump appointees. But these XOs are so egregious and so clearly intended to destroy the rule of law that even the Trump appointees may balk at them. (V)

Some Voters Are Souring on Trump Already

James Carville is way past his use-by date, but a few of the things he said back in 1992 are still valid. One of them is: "It's the economy, stupid." It still is. Kamala Harris learned that to her dismay, even though it wasn't her fault. Quinnipiac has run the same poll of registered voters in January, February, and March. It is instructive to compare the results:

Date	Approve	Disapprove	Net
Jan. 29	46%	43%	+3%
Feb. 19	45%	49%	-4%
Mar. 13	42%	53%	-11%

Presidential approval polls are relevant, even when the president is not on the ballot, because historically the vast majority of people who approve of the president vote for other people from his party and the vast majority of disapprovers vote against his party at the next opportunity.

Some of the other questions asked in March are also interesting. On the economy, it is 41% approve and 54% disapprove, for a net -13%. And the effects of whatever tariffs finally get imposed haven't been felt yet (but see next item). More specifically, 23% describe the economy as good or excellent and 76% describe it as not so good or poor. It's those damn eggs again. Voters also say the economy is their top issue. On trade with Mexico, Trump is 10 points under water and on trade with Canada he is 22 points under water. All in all, not a great start.

Trump is also not doing well on the war in Ukraine. There he is 17 points under water. Voters also think Elon Musk is hurting the country by a margin of 54% to 40%.

Voters are unhappy about other officials as well. J.D. Vance is 8 points under water and Robert Kennedy Jr. is 11 points under water. Only Secretary of State Marco Rubio is (relatively) popular, with 39% approval and only 40% disapproval, with 21% not having an opinion, more than with the others. No one likes Congress and everyone thinks members all put party over country. Quinnipiac asked more questions and gave crosstabs in the link above. The biggest number in the crosstabs is 98%, the percentage of Democrats who oppose Trump eliminating the Dept. of Education. The smallest number other than "no opinion" on a approve/disapprove question is 1% of Democrats approve of eliminating the Dept. of Education. Runner up is 2% of Democrats approving of what Elon Musk is doing. (V)

Trump Hates Farmers

Donald Trump said there might be a "period of adjustment" for farmers. They are noticing. West Virginia farmer Jennifer Gilkerson produces fruit, freeze dries it, and sells it to schools. But the USDA program that helps schools buy school lunches has been cut and the local schools can't afford her fruit anymore. Tariffs are also cutting into her export markets. A number of farmers have said that once you have lost those markets to Brazil and other countries, they are not coming back. This is especially true for products that Americans don't want, like chicken feet or cow tongues. This is not a good time to be a farmer. Farmers who voted for Trump because they don't like it that, in their view, boys are playing on girls' sports teams, were not expecting this, even though Trump mentioned tariffs in every speech for an entire year. They weren't paying attention.

Chuck Conner, head of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, sees this from a macroeconomic perspective. He said that whenever there is a trade dispute, other countries know where America's soft underbelly is: food exports. He knows that Brazil, Australia, and other countries are also capable of exporting food, and if theirs is cheaper due to tariffs, they will get the sales.

Yet another problem for farmers is that the Dept. of Agriculture has many programs giving farmers grants and loans to help insulate them from volatile weather. Although the programs themselves have not all been killed, staff shortages at the Department have created delays in getting money distributed, which hurts farmers who need to buy seeds for planting right now and have to pay right now and who don't have the cash.

In some cases, farmers and co-ops have already bought things and were waiting to get reimbursed and that is not happening. They are up a tree. Seth Koeck, a blueberry farmer in Maine, got a $50,000 grant to spread mulch on his fields to improve his yields. It is planting time and the money hasn't arrived. It coming in June will be too late. He is not alone. Many farmers don't have much money in the bank. Their business model is to borrow money in the winter to plant their crops and then pay back the loans in the fall after they harvest them. If the loans to buy seeds and cover labor and other expenses during planting season don't come through on time, they are stuck. John Boyd, a farmer in Virginia, said: "I've got real debt; I've got real expenses. But I also have the will to farm in some sort of way. I can't tell you how, but I am making calls and trying to put some things in place to get through this crisis the president has put us in." Notice who he blamed. It's not the weather or God. It's a guy who just THINKS he's God.

Some farmers have enough money to plant, but that is creating another problem in certain sectors. With an expected glut of soybeans, corn, wheat, and pork bellies due to the closing export markets, there will be an oversupply on the domestic market. Commodity futures markets reflect that. Farmers who want to lock in sales in the fall by buying a contract to deliver a certain amount of product on a certain date after harvest time are noticing that buyers aren't bidding as much as they used to because they expect the glut to force prices down.

All in all, many farmers are already feeling the pinch, and this is just getting started. If Democrats can make the 2026 elections about "Republicans have ruined the economy," that could resonate in rural areas. (V)

One Democratic Group Releases Its Plans for Fighting Back

Democrats are adrift and don't know what to do. They have almost no power and they don't dare use the little power they have, like the filibuster, for fear of being blamed for the consequences. One group, the center-left Third Way think tank, is about to launch an 18-month program, the Signal Project, to focus on what polling says the voters care about, even if it is not what Democrats care about. For example, Democrats are furious about Donald Trump releasing the Jan. 6 rioters, degrading the civil service, claiming that Ukraine invaded Russia, and the endless crimes he is committing on a daily basis. But many voters don't care about any of this. Instead, Third Way's focus will be on the following issues, which polling shows do resonate with voters.

• Prices: Voters are extremely sensitive to prices and inflation. Trump promised to lower them on Day 1. He didn't. Harping on "he lied to you" puts the blame on him, not on the voters' own stupidity for expecting a miracle. Talking about how groceries, housing, cars, gas, and other things are going up and will go up further due to Trump's tariffs could be a very strong argument. Democrats shouldn't overpromise what they can't deliver, but they can say: "He doesn't care about you but we will do our best to help you" without making concrete promises. It is about demonizing the fact that Republicans don't care about them.
  
  
• Food Safety: Elon Musk killed off the team at the FDA that ensures that formula is not poisonous to babies and that E. coli is not found in applesauce or hamburgers. A pitch of "They killed off the people who protect our food supply in order to give billionaires a bigger tax cut" could work. People care about food safety.
  
  
• Nuclear Security: Musk fired the people who protect the country's stockpile of nuclear weapons (although some have been rehired). But the argument that Republicans don't think it is worth spending money to make sure our nuclear weapons are stored safely and don't fall into the wrong hands could be effective.
  
  
• Protecting Children: Never waste a good crisis. People care about their kids not dying. The measles epidemic in Texas is not directly Trump's fault, but it forms a great background for saying: "Measles is not a joke. It is a killer and the guy Trump appointed to head American health care, Robert Kennedy Jr., is a lifelong opponent of vaccinations, which prevent measles, polio, and other once-feared diseases from killing your children. Kennedy and Trump don't care about your children."
  
  
• Air safety: Musk has fired hundreds of people involved in air safety in many forms. There was a plane crash in D.C. on Jan. 29 in which 67 people died. There was a plane crash in Philadelphia on Jan. 31 resulting in six deaths. Two private jets collided in Scottsdale on Feb. 10 resulting in one death and four injuries. A Delta plane landed upside down in Toronto on Feb. 17. These aren't the only aviation incidents this year. The Democrats need to emphasize that Musk firing air traffic controllers and others involved in air safety can have fatal consequences.
  
  
• Veterans: This is a no-brainer. Veterans are sacred in America. Musk firing 80,000 people at the V.A. is sure to reduce care and increase delays for filing claims. Is this efficiency? Democrats need to harp on the fact that they would never do anything to reduce the care veterans receive, but all the Republicans care about is tax cuts for billionaires and killing government regulations that prevent companies from polluting the air and water and cheating customers.
  
  
• Protecting Personal Information: Spreading the word that Musk has allowed his band of twenty-something hackers to plunder the Social Security Administration's databases so they can copy your personal information, which is protected by law, onto their notebooks for some future nefarious use is a winner. People don't like it at all. Emphasize that no Democrat would ever, ever permit that and that under them, anyone caught doing it would end up in prison very fast.
  
  
• Social Security and Medicare: If there is anything that can enrage seniors more than talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare, we don't know what it might be. Musk is closing Social Security offices and cutting Medicare's telehealth services for rural voters (and nonvoters). The funding cuts are forcing rural hospitals to close. This is an issue that not only plays well with seniors, but also with rural voters of all ages. Democrats should flog it for all it is worth, and then some.
  
  
• Gutting Medicaid, "Obamacare," and SNAP: Republicans have already gutted or are planning to gut Medicaid, Obamacare, and SNAP (food stamps). These cuts are extremely unpopular. Democrats need to promise to do everything they can to reverse them, but they need to capture both chambers of Congress to even try. By tying the promise to at least try to fix this specific condition, they could make the 2026 elections about this and the other items.
  

Many Democrats will find this approach deeply unsatisfying. They want voters to hate Trump for being an autocrat who breaks laws left and right. But the voters don't care. The blue team has to go with the voters they have, not the voters they would like to have. But there are plenty of issues, like the ones above, where Trump and the Republicans are doing things the voters don't like. Better to go after them for things the voters do care about than things the voters don't care about. Needless to say, Democratic candidates for all offices up and down the ballot would be advised to pick a few of these and give them plenty of attention, depending on local polling. (V)

Michiganders and Michigeese Are Regretting Their Votes

We know how the voters cast their ballots. Those data are out there. However, Axios has partnered with Sago and Engagious to run focus groups in the seven swing states to find out why they voted as they did. Their last focus group invited people in Michigan who voted for Donald Trump to talk about their expectations, their votes, and their attitudes toward Trump now.

In short, what they are getting is not what they bargained for, and they don't like it. They are afraid his policies will hurt their pocketbooks. There is lots of remorse (and not just from Arab Americans in Dearborn).

Among the words that came up spontaneously during the conversation were "erratic," "frightening," and "dictator," and these were all Biden-to-Trump voters. They also did not like Elon Musk, DOGE, the large-scale firings of federal workers, and lack of price relief. Here are some comments.

Sheryl (44) said: "He's so erratic, and it's getting to the point where I'm almost scared to watch the news. I mean, it's a little bit frightening 'cause each day is something new, so you get a little anxious."

Phil (45) said: "I mean, Canada? When have we ever had issues with Canada? We barely have a border. You can go in and out of the country and a lot of places, a lot of states. I think we're just barking up the wrong tree with this."

Therese (55) bristled at the image of a crowned Trump and his "long live the king" remark, saying: "He's acting like a dictator."

Michael (43) said: "Trump campaigned on lowering prices and making things more affordable for working-class people. He's moving in the opposite direction."

Katelyn (26) said: "I was expecting him to do things to better our country and I'm not seeing that."

Malea (34) fears that "that this will eventually turn into a dictatorship... if the people that we elected [to Congress] to be his checks and balances don't check and balance him, then what are they there for?"

However, only one member of the group would vote for Kamala Harris if they could hit the UNDO button, so she is even less popular than Trump is. The moderator summed that up by saying: "Just because these swing voters discovered they don't like the taste of wheatgrass juice, it doesn't mean they long to swallow castor oil." (V)

Pete Buttigieg Not Expected to Run for Anything in 2026

Most up-and-coming politicians would give their eye teeth for being in a state with an open Senate seat and an open race for the governor's mansion. Pete Buttigieg is in that situation and has said: "No thanks." He will not run for either office. Part of it is that he is new to the state. He is not a carpetbagger in the sense that he moved from Indiana to Michigan to run for something. It is just that his husband's family lives there, so the move was organic.

But another part is that he is almost certain to run for president in 2028 and he doesn't want to run two different campaigns in the space of 2 years. If he weren't gay, the 43-year-old could run as the second coming of Jack Kennedy, but he is, which complicates his situation enormously. While a gay president is probably a bridge too far for many Americans, a gay vice president might not be, especially if the presidential candidate were young and vigorous. Of course, you can't run for vice president, but if you run for president and make a strong showing, you will be on the winner's radar, especially if you are very careful to run a positive campaign and not ding the other candidates too much.

In his nonannouncement, Buttigieg attacked Donald Trump for making America less free, less secure, less democratic, and less prosperous. Expect him to travel around the country making speeches and attracting attention for the next couple of years. He will surely campaign for the Democratic nominees for senator and governor from his new home state. He is an excellent speaker. If you have never heard him, here is his address to the Democratic National Convention last August:

If Buttigieg runs for president, he will have a couple of serious problems. First, he won't even be the favorite to win his home state. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) is expected to also run and she is much better known than he is. She would undoubtedly also be happy getting the #2 slot if the #1 slot is a man. Also, a white woman could probably count on votes from many women who want to see a female president in their lifetime. A gay man might get votes from gay people who have a similar dream, but realistically, more than half the electorate (especially the Democratic electorate) consists of women, so Whitmer simply has a bigger built-in base.

Second, in Buttigieg's 2020 run for president, although he raised an impressive $80 million, he did spectacularly poorly with Black voters, who form a sizable chunk of Democratic primary voters. Whitmer does not have that problem at all. A full 94% of Black voters in Michigan voted for her for governor in 2022. It's hard to get more enthusiasm than that. If the Democrats get their druthers—and that is by no means certain—and South Carolina votes first and Buttigieg comes in ninth or something like that, that will put a big dent in his campaign. His best state might well be almost-entirely white and quite libertarian New Hampshire, but Democrats want to de-emphasize the Granite State. He is smart enough to understand all this, so expect him to try to cozy up to Black voters going forward. It will be interesting to see if it works. (V)

Trump's Attitude Toward NATO is Pushing Europe to Shun American Weapons

There are rumors of a "kill switch" on the U.S.-made F-35 jet fighter. Such a switch would allow Donald Trump to disable all European F-35s in the event Europe got into a war with Russia and Trump sided with Russia. If this were true, it would not be a selling point for Lockheed Martin trying to sell F-35s to European air forces.

It is probably not literally true (at least, Lockheed Martin is not admitting it), but it is kinda almost true. The F-35 has a vast amount of very complex software in it that connects it to GPS and networks in real time to manage its fighting ability. This software is updated constantly because Russia keeps coming up with ways of defeating the F-35, so updates are needed to win at this cat-and-mouse game. The U.S. could easily refuse to supply updates, thus degrading the fighting capacity of the planes quite easily and openly. Also, parts on these things wear out quickly and you can't order new ones on Amazon. Additionally, critical electronics (with their software) are sealed in black boxes that the customer air forces may not open. They need to be sent to authorized facilities regularly for maintenance and updates.

So are European countries stuck with the F-35 and continued dependence on the U.S.? Maybe not. Portugal is getting cold feet about buying F-35s on account of Donald Trump, and others may follow. The possibility of Trump degrading planes that cost about $90 million each is something that gives European air forces the jitters. This was not really true before Jan. 20.

But do they have alternatives? Yes. There are high-end European-made jet fighters for sale. One is the supersonic Typhoon, which can fly at Mach 2.35 and is especially maneuverable in dogfights. It can reach 65,000 ft. It is not as advanced as the F-35, but experience shows that older designs are sometimes less finicky than newer bleeding-edge ones. There have been 570 Typhoons produced and they are currently in use by the Austrian, British, German, Italian, Spanish, and other air forces. They are also popular in the Middle East. A big plus for the Typhoon is that it is already out there in volume and many air forces already know it well and have pilots trained on it.

Another supersonic jet fighter made in Europe is the Swedish Gripen. It has a smaller payload capacity than the Typhoon, can reach only Mach 2.0 and a ceiling of 50,000 feet, but it is cheaper than the Typhoon. There have been 247 planes produced and they are used by the air forces of the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Sweden, and the U.K.

Yet another alternative is the French Rafale. It can fly at Mach 1.8 but can't go as high as the Typhoon (52,000 ft). It is used by the Croatian, Egyptian, French, Greek, and Indian air forces.

None of these planes are as good as the F-35, and none of them have the stealth technology that makes the F-35 nearly invisible to current radars. But they don't have to be. They only have to be better than the Russian MiG-35, which is a repainted and rebranded MiG-29M chosen to match the F-35 name. It is quite fast (Mach 2.25) but has a lower ceiling than the Typhoon and is not nearly as state-of-the-art as the F-35. A more advanced fighter, the Su-57, is in development but not yet available to the Russian Air Force. Experience shows that actually getting a prototype to be reliable enough to use in war is easier said than done.

In the end, a lot also depends on pilot quality and training. A finicky very high-performance plane that depends on complex systems to get optimum performance may be harder to actually use in a war than a simpler but easier to control plane. For the F-35 to function well, a lot of things have to function perfectly. Also, World War I-style dogfights aren't really how wars are fought anymore, and having better $50,000 drones (or better anti-drone weapons) may ultimately be more important than having the highest-performance jet fighter. If a $5 million tank can be destroyed by a $100,000 Javelin or $30,000 Swedish NLAW anti-tank missile, future battlefield dominance may be determined by who has the cheapest weapons, not who has the most capable ones. In any event, if Europe decides it can't trust the U.S. anymore, it has several European options to use now and develop for the future, although the rivalry between the different manufacturers could make creating a single E.U. Air Force very difficult. Also, developing a plane as capable as the F-35 would take close cooperation and years to design and build.

Some European leaders, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, have got the message. They are urging other European leaders to stop buying American weapons and buy European weapons instead. Lockheed Martin is not going to like this and will complain to Trump. He will then put more pressure on Macron and the others, but they don't trust him, so we have no idea how this could play out. (V)

The Brain Drain is Back

The original "brain drain" referred to highly educated and talented people from all over the world immigrating to the U.S., to the detriment of their home countries. More recently, it has acquired a new meaning: People migrating from red states to blue states—in particular, over red state policies like abortion.

A recent study shows that, as a result of the Dobbs decision, almost 150,000 people/year are moving out of states with abortion bans to states without them. The people leaving are often the most valuable residents, often highly desirable young professionals, some of them in key public health roles. If large numbers of highly educated young people leave a state, that is not a good omen for the state's future. Coal mining doesn't hack it as much as it used to.

Another study, published this week in the JAMA Internal Medicine, also found that a significant number of doctors have left states with abortion bans. In some states, there are already so few OB/GYNs willing to work there (for fear of having to tell patients that unfortunately they have to die because saving their lives would be illegal) that patients sometimes have to drive for hours just to get routine care. If a pregnant woman goes into labor unexpectedly, having her husband handle the delivery with a smartphone in one hand, cheered on by a distant doctor on Zoom, may become the new normal in some places. Heaven forbid that something goes wrong and the nearest OB/GYN is 3 hours away in a different state. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger