The Week Ahead

March 9, 2025

This coming week feels different to me than the previous weeks in Trump 2.0. That’s due, at least in part, to the fact that so far, we’ve been focusing on details, such as specific cuts to agencies or rulings in lawsuits. This week, I’ve zoomed out and am looking at indicators of the larger picture.

We’ll definitely be returning to details as the week proceeds, particularly with Friday the 14th as the deadline for a government shutdown if no deal on the budget is reached. But before we get there, a few flags for the big picture.

The Good—Sort Of

First, a bit of what one friend referred to as “perverse optimism.” The Economist noted this week that “Investors, consumers and companies are showing the first signs of souring on Donald Trump’s vision. With his aggressive and erratic protectionism, he is playing with fire.” The combination of chaos caused by tariffs (more accurately, taxes on consumers) alongside Elon Musk’s noisy but largely accomplishment-free leadership of DOGE has put the markets on edge.

It has long been believed that Trump reacts to the markets like he does little else and that negative economic developments may help to rein in some of his excesses. Among the key questions is whether reining him in as he continues to damage fundamental democratic institutions will be enough.

The Secretary of HHS Ignores a Measles Outbreak

It’s increasingly clear that we are in dangerous straits if a major epidemic along the lines of Covid materializes.

Robert Kennedy Jr.’s irresponsible behavior in the face of the measles outbreak in the Southwest is not encouraging. A second person died last week, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services decided it was a good time for a hiking trip and this weird selfie of himself crowned by the clouds.

Although Kennedy has nodded at vaccines, it was only to tell parents to consult with their children’s doctors. At the same time, Kennedy has encouraged an unproven vitamin treatment using Vitamin A that does nothing to prevent the spread of the highly contagious virus. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, who gave Kennedy the vote he needed for confirmation despite being a doctor who spent years working in public health, has much to answer for.

The CDC website, which is providing at least some details about the outbreak, characterizes the “risk for widespread measles in the United States” as low, “due to robust U.S. immunization and surveillance programs and outbreak response capacity supported by federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial health partners.” It’s a collision of the world we used to live in with the world we live in now.

The Lawyers Take a Stand (But Is It Enough?)

The Trump administration is going after lawyers. This is to be expected since much of the pushback against the administration, including some of the most successful efforts, is happening in courts.

Trump has now launched two Executive Orders designed to punish specific law firms: old-line Washington, D.C., firm Covington & Burling, which had the temerity to provide former Special Counsel Jack Smith with pro bono representation, and Perkins Coie, for the apparent sin of representing Democrats, including in connection with events surrounding the 2016 election. As he signed the EO regarding Covington, Trump took a moment to “savor this one,” saying, “We’re going to call it the Deranged Jack Smith signing.”

You would think a president who recently needed lawyers for his own criminal defense would understand the importance of making legal representation available to all people. Our second president, John Adams, who represented British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre, characterized making sure everyone who needed it had access to representation as the responsibility of all lawyers. But Trump thinks legal representation matters only when it’s his own. Now that his former lawyers, Pam Bondi (who represented him during impeachment), Todd Blanche, and Emil Bove (who represented him in connection with the criminal charges against him) are running the Justice Department, it’s open season on everyone else.

Sunday morning on Fox News, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, “We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after.”

Why would Trump say something that so clearly runs opposite to the role of lawyers in American democracy? Because the first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. That’s the line recited by Dick the Butcher in Act IV, Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Henry VI.

Here’s a little literary fill-in if it’s been a while since you’ve read Shakespeare: Dick is the right-hand man for Jack Cade, the leader of the rebellion against Henry. They burn books. They hate intellectuals. They are this way because they understand that it’s easier for a coup to succeed if the people involved are ignorant and much more difficult if people understand their rights. As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted when he included the line in a 1985 dissent, “As a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.” So, of course, Trump wants to take them out.

The attack on two specific firms is bad enough, but Section 4 of the Perkins Coie order should give all law firms reasons for concern. It reads:

Sec. 4. Racial Discrimination. (a) The Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including whether large law firms: reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.

(b) The Attorney General, in coordination with the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in consultation with State Attorneys General as appropriate, shall investigate the practices of large law firms as described in subsection (a) of this section who do business with Federal entities for compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws and take any additional actions the Attorney General deems appropriate in light of the evidence uncovered. [Emphasis added].

Any firm that runs afoul of Trump’s good graces now must stand in fear of losing its ability to continue to represent its clients if the government is involved in any way. And we know that for Trump, “race-based and sex-based” discrimination, more often than not, means efforts to restore a level playing field in light of historic discrimination. Law firms, which still have great strides to make when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusivity, are being disincentivized from doing so and even threatened if they continue to make opportunity available to Black people, women, and others who have participated the least at the highest levels of the profession despite being fully qualified.

The threats have even extended to law schools, as Washington, D.C.’s acting U.S. Attorney Eagle Ed Martin wrote to Georgetown that his office wouldn’t be hiring their students and graduates unless they cleaned up their act. Georgetown Law School’s dean, William Treanor, responded that “Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”

The American Bar Association wrote a letter of its own after the attack on Covington & Burling. The law firms themselves are in a difficult position because they all have clients to represent, and they owe them a duty to maintain their ability to do so in front of the federal government. Although the Wall Street Journal is reporting that there is a great deal of concern at the firms, Perkins Coie has said they intend to challenge Trump’s order, calling it “patently unlawful.”

But this is the time for a unified stand. Trump’s behavior is beyond any reasonable bounds and unique measures are called for. The law firms are almost forced to find a way to band together in this environment. At this point, either they stand together or they will all hang separately, as Trump picks them off one by one. Lawyers are uniquely suited to fight back against unconstitutional measures from a would-be dictator. We need them to stand up more than ever in this moment.

A Possible Moment of Interest in Court This Week

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit last month seeking greater transparency about DOGE, alleging it has failed to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records and is not preserving records as it’s required to by law.

On Friday, Federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper held a hearing on whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. Judge Cooper did not rule immediately, instead taking the matter under advisement. CREW believes DOGE should have to release material before this week ends, given (to come full circle from where we started) the timeline on federal budget proceedings. Either party can appeal the judge’s decision once he makes it, which may lead to some delays, but this lawsuit offers the possibility we will learn more about how DOGE is conducting the people’s business, given the shocking lack of transparency it continues to get away with.

And there is a bit of irony here regarding the judge, an Obama appointee. He is a Stanford Law grad and a former special assistant to the Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department. In private practice, Judge Cooper represented clients accused of white collar crimes and conducted internal corporate investigations over allegations of waste and fraud. He worked at Covington & Burling from 2012 to 2014. You really can’t make this stuff up.

We’re in this together,

Joyce