The Reign of Trump

[Raw Shark]

I'm a left-wing liberal. Hi have you met me? First vote I cast was for Bernie Sanders. And I own not one, but two firearms. It's a useful tool that I own. I'm not going nuts running down the street, I keep them locked up in the safe unless I need one.

[Raw Shark]

Wednesday Addamds is a musician, like me. She plays the cello. Not my instrument; I rock brass. But similar.

[Rogue 9]

Sorry, do the Democrats have ideas to improve the US? Because Trump will be very loud that the results will be missing only because he will have been held back (regardless whether anyone remains to do so).

Yes. "The Democrats have no ideas" is a Republican campaign talking point. Reference the Biden administration and the CHIPS Act, infrastructure law, somewhat deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act (which capped prescription drug costs, invested hundreds of billions into climate change mitigation, raised the corporate tax rate to pay for much of itself, and other things besides), and gun safety legislation. NPR had a good summary at the time.

[Solauren]

The democrats have tons of ideas. They implemented many of them under Obama. Trump reversed most of them.
Under Biden, they were working on re-implenting them, as well as more.

[aerius]

Yes. "The Democrats have no ideas" is a Republican campaign talking point. Reference the Biden administration and the CHIPS Act, infrastructure law, somewhat deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act (which capped prescription drug costs, invested hundreds of billions into climate change mitigation, raised the corporate tax rate to pay for much of itself, and other things besides), and gun safety legislation. NPR had a good summary at the time.

All that is icing on the cake, except you have no fucking cake to put the icing on. None of that is going to change the fact that you have a completely broken system where your financial & healthcare sectors make up over 40% of your GDP. It hasn't stopped or even slowed down the rate of cost increases in the healthcare sector, and the financial system is even more leveraged & fucked up now than it was in 2008. The education system is still laughable and getting worse every year, illiteracy rates are trending upwards and math skills are shitting the bed as well. Housing along with cost of living is getting more & more unaffordable and will continue to do so until you break the Wall Street cartel. And despite pouring countless billions into infrastructure, the electrical grid is still garbage and the transportation network is slowly degrading.

And of course you blew god knows how many more billions on yet more forever wars because if you don't fight the Arabs & Russians over there you'll have to fight them over here or something.

Bottom line is none of the fundamental problems in the US have been touched or even looked at. You have a nation of retards; around half of them think Trump is great and super awesome, the others thought Biden & Kamala were mentally competent when one of them was senile and the other's a fucking airhead.

[vakundok]

The democrats have tons of ideas. They implemented many of them under Obama. Trump reversed most of them.
Under Biden, they were working on re-implenting them, as well as more.

Thank you guys. Then it is just a question of presentation, like having multiple narratives for Ukraine (not only whether it is right, but also the when did Americans run away from hardship, did Kennedy say you would only go to the moon if not expensive, or is delaying and then demanding payment for a signed warranty the way to Greatness, etc.).

Please don't let the US to become the personal property of a single circle.

[vakundok]

Bottom line is none of the fundamental problems in the US have been touched or even looked at. You have a nation of retards; around half of them think Trump is great and super awesome, the others thought Biden & Kamala were mentally competent when one of them was senile and the other's a fucking airhead.

A bit strong, bit pretty much how it feels from the outside, this is why I asked.
And periodically visiting Hungary I can see the ongoing brainwashing and the "mental slavery" of the people who would want to change, that I fear the US is straightforward into.

[Solauren]

I also think Aerius stated the problem clearly.

There are alot of deep problems in the US, that no one has has tried to deal with yet. They're focusing on the surface problems (and the Democracts have lots of ideas for them), but not going after the deep ones.

[Solauren]

Kremlin calls Trump 'emotional' after US president says Putin is 'crazy'

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2w ... wtab-en-us
by Laura Gozzi & Jaroslav Lukiv
BBC News

The Kremlin claimed Donald Trump was showing signs of "emotional overload" after he called Vladimir Putin "absolutely crazy" following Moscow's largest aerial assault on Ukraine.

The US president said on Truth Social on Sunday that "something has happened" to Putin, after Russia killed 13 in Ukraine with 367 drones and missiles. "He has gone absolutely crazy," Trump said. "Needlessly killing a lot of people."

Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, said the comments were "connected to an emotional overload of everyone involved".

Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, meanwhile said that Ukraine's allies had removed all range limits on supplied arms, amid reports he would give Kyiv Taurus missiles.

Trump's comments followed Russia's largest combined aerial attack since its full-scale invasion of February 2022. At least 13 people were killed and dozens injured in Ukraine during the night between Saturday and Sunday after Russia fired 367 drones and missiles.

Between Sunday evening and Monday morning, Russia launched 355 drones against Ukraine, killing 10. The Ukrainian air force said it was the largest attack yet conducted with drones alone.

Peskov said the latest aerial assaults were a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia's "social infrastructure".

The Russian defence ministry said that air defence systems destroyed 20 Ukrainian drones over several Russian regions.

Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, said on Sunday there was no "military sense" to Russia's aerial attacks - rather they were "an obvious political choice... by Putin, a choice by Russia... to continue the war and destroy lives."

In an apparent response to the Russian attacks over the weekend, German chancellor Merz said there were "no longer" range restrictions on arms supplied to Ukraine.

"This means that Ukraine can now defend itself, for example, by attacking military positions in Russia... with very few exceptions, it didn't do that until recently. It can now do that," Merz said.

Reuters reported that Zelensky was due to travel to Berlin on Wednesday, although this has not been confirmed.

The BBC approached the Chancellery for comment on whether Merz's statement suggested an announcement was imminent on the supply of Taurus missiles - something that the previous German government refused to do.

Last year, the UK said that Ukraine had the right to decide how to use British supplied weapons in its defence. In November, then-US president Joe Biden gave Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles supplied by the US to strike Russia, albeit with limitations.

The Taurus missile has a range of about 500km - a far greater distance than other systems supplied by Ukraine's allies. Russia said supply of the weapon would be "a dangerous move".

Speaking in New Jersey late on Sunday, Trump said of Putin: "I've known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he's sending rockets into cities and killing people, and I don't like it at all."

He also said he was considering increasing US sanctions on Russia - something he has repeatedly threatened to do before.

Trump posted his "crazy" remark shortly afterwards, adding on Truth Social: "I've always said that he wants all of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that's proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia!"

But the US president also had strong words for Zelensky, saying that he was "doing his country no favours by talking the way he does".

"Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don't like it, and it better stop," Trump wrote of Zelensky.

Despite Kyiv's European allies preparing further sanctions for Russia, the US has said it will either continue trying to broker these peace talks, or "walk away" if progress does not follow.

Peskov said on Monday that Russia was "truly grateful" to the Americans and "personally to President Trump" for their help in organising and launching this negotiation process.

Last week, Trump and Putin had a two-hour phone call to discuss a US-proposed ceasefire deal to halt the fighting.

The US president said he believed the call had gone "very well", adding that Russia and Ukraine would "immediately start" negotiations toward a ceasefire and "an end to the war".

Ukraine has publicly agreed to a 30-day ceasefire but Putin has only said Russia will work with Ukraine to craft a "memorandum" on a "possible future peace" - a move described by Kyiv and its European allies as delaying tactics.

The first direct Ukrainian-Russian talks since 2022 were held on 16 May in Istanbul, Turkey.

Aside from a major prisoner of war swap last week, there was little or no progress on bringing a pause in fighting closer.

Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory. This includes Crimea - Ukraine's southern peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014.

Did Hell Freeze over? Or is Trump finally getting a clue

[Rogue 9]

Did Hell Freeze over? Or is Trump finally getting a clue

In my opinion based on observing how Trump behaves in his public life, two things are happening here: 1.) He thinks war and death are bad for business, and may even personally dislike them (though that depends greatly on who's doing the dying; see his stance on the Central Park 5). 2.) He really doesn't like being made a fool of, and Putin is rubbing his face in his failure to fulfill his promise to cut a deal to end the war. Trump wants real estate deals and to exploit Ukraine's mineral reserves, and he wants Russia to back off and leave him alone to do that in exchange for financial incentives (sanctions relief), and that Putin is not taking the deal infuriates him.

[Solauren]

It's almost like Trump wasn't listening to his 'trusted advisors', and was only trying to make money any way he could....

[Raw Shark]

It's almost like Donny Jingles sucked Daddy Putin's balls and stroked the shaft and swallowed the gravy and then didn't get what he wanted and feels exploited. I mean, I am by no means a political expert but I'm starting (not really starting) to think that the guy might be a fucking idiot.

[bilateralrope]

Dr. Oz Offers To Import 400 Canadian Bird Flu Farm Ostriches

Published May 27, 2025 at 12:20 PM EDT

Dr. Mehmet Oz has offered sanctuary to 400 ostriches facing death in Canada due to bird flu.

Dr. Oz, the Trump appointed director of the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), along with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, have intervened to rescue the flightless birds after authorities in British Columbia pledged to cull them amid an outbreak of avian flu.

Why It Matters

In January, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered the birds be killed after 69 of the same flock at Universal Ostrich Farm in the West Kootenays died from the highly infectious virus. The farm has been fighting the order in court.

Newsweek has contacted the CFIA for comment via email.

The U.S. is currently dealing with one of the largest outbreaks of avian flu in decades which sent egg prices soaring. The CFIA has said it believes some 14 million domestic birds in Canada have been hit by the disease.

What To Know

Oz is offering his 900-acre ranch in Okeechobee, Florida, as a new home for the beleaguered birds.

The CMS director said he had spoken with the owner of the ranch where the birds currently live, who told him he could house them.

Dr. Oz's intervention comes after RFK Jr. asked the CFIA to study the ostriches' response to the flu rather than cull them, saying it could "the opportunity for future insights into immune longevity" associated with bird flu, as well as "further our scientific understanding of the virus and the immune physiologic response."

"We are fully committed to supporting CFIA and Canadian farmers in safeguarding both public health and animal welfare and to further studying this important and unique flock for scientific advancement," he wrote a letter to CFIA president Paul MacKinnon.

Dr. Oz agreed with Kennedy. "We should study the birds to see the likelihood of them getting infected," he told the New York Post. "The Canadians don't seem to want to do this."

Their efforts come after New York billionaire John Catsimatidis announced he was joining activists in the fight to keep the birds alive.

What People Are Saying

Dr. Oz, speaking to The Post, said: "It's not just about ostriches," Oz said. "It's about all the birds. I'd rather the scientists make the determination—not bureaucrats. We found out what happened during the COVID pandemic, when the bureaucrats made all the decisions."

Catsimatidis told The Post on Monday: "I'm thrilled. Bring the ostriches to Dr. Oz in Florida where they will be safe. I agree with RFK and Dr. Oz that the ostriches aren't sick."

Upholding the cull, Canadian Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn said, according to a May 13 CBC report: "Personal losses must be weighed against the broader public interest in protecting public health and maintaining trade stability. Avian influenza is a virus capable of causing serious harm to both animals and humans, with significant implications for Canada's poultry businesses and international trade status. To combat threats like this virus, Parliament has authorized the CFIA to act decisively, making swift decisions with far-reaching consequences, often under conditions of scientific uncertainty."

Just in case bird flu doesn't kill people fast enough for the plague cultists in charge of US healthcare.

[Solauren]

I love how they are framing it as 'it's to study the virus's effects'.

When really, Dr. Oz probably just wants free Ostritch's.

[Luke Starkiller]

I'd rather the scientists make the determination—not bureaucrats. We found out what happened during the COVID pandemic, when the bureaucrats made all the decisions.

That is a stunning statement, considering how this group of people talked about actual scientific recommendations in 2020. You would have to have a negative capacity for shame to say that with a straight face.

[Solauren]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariff ... wtab-en-us

Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law


By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and JOSH BOAK
Updated 8:56 PM EDT, May 28, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.

The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.

Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs would force manufacturers to bring back factory jobs to the U.S. and generate enough revenue to reduce federal budget deficits. He used the tariffs as a negotiating cudgel in hopes of forcing other nations to negotiate agreements that favored the U.S., suggesting he would simply set the rates himself if the terms were unsatisfactory.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that trade deficits amount to a national emergency “that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

The administration, he said, remains “committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.

Trump might still be able to temporarily launch import taxes of 15% for 150 days on nations with which the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit. The ruling notes that a president has this authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The administration swiftly filed notice of appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.

The case was heard by three judges: Timothy Reif, who was appointed by Trump, Jane Restani, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and Gary Katzman, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump put in place using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He put a 25% tax on most imported autos and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum. Those tariffs depend on a Commerce Department investigation that reveals national security risks from imported products.

It was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that deals specifically with civil lawsuits involving international trade law.

While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.

He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.

Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.

His administration argues that courts approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the “political” question of whether the president’s rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law.

Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for U.S. economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world’s largest economy.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive.

A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the tariffs had “jacked up prices on groceries and cars, threatened shortages of essential goods and wrecked supply chains for American businesses large and small.″

And I bet every country in the world is doing their regional version of flipping the bird, and telling Trump "fuck you buddy"

[bilateralrope]

Sounds like the penguins won the tariff war.

[Solauren]

Sounds like the penguins won the tariff war.

= Mental Images of Penguins making rude gestures at Trump =

I just hope this is the start of courts coming down directly on Trump and going 'NOPE'.

They'd already hit back and his 'DOGE' alot, so maybe the rest of his term will be him trying stupid shit, and the courts stopping him, followed by a Democract majority in both houses impeaching, removing and arresting his (and Vance's) ass.

I'm not sure what they could actually charge Vance with, however.

[bilateralrope]

Sounds like the penguins won the tariff war.

= Mental Images of Penguins making rude gestures at Trump =

Something like this ?

I just hope this is the start of courts coming down directly on Trump and going 'NOPE'.

They'd already hit back and his 'DOGE' alot, so maybe the rest of his term will be him trying stupid shit, and the courts stopping him, followed by a Democract majority in both houses impeaching, removing and arresting his (and Vance's) ass.

I'm not sure what they could actually charge Vance with, however.

This is not the start of the courts coming down on Trump. That's been happening for a bit now regarding deportations. The deference courts used to show to the US government is eroding, especially when they pull shit like: Trump DOJ: Our Own Suggested Remedy For Illegally Renditioning Men To South Sudan Is Now Too Burdensome.
It's only a matter of time for the contempt rulings hit. That is when we get to see if the courts can do anything. Hopefully SCOTUS acts to preserve their own power.


As for Vance, he would be more willing to do what rich assholes tell him. But he doesn't have the support of MAGA like Trump does.

[Solauren]

I should clarify.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time where a court as said specifically 'Trump; you do not have the power to do that, at all, therefore it can not happen/will not happen/can't happen/is now stopped."

Yes, his administration has lost other court cases. But I don't recall any rulings where Trump was specifically mentioned as not being able to do something.

[bilateralrope]

Musk slams Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill as 'a disgusting abomination'

8:40am

Elon Musk blasted President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" of tax breaks and spending cuts as a "disgusting abomination," testing the limits of his political influence as he targeted the centerpiece of Republicans' legislative agenda.

The broadside, which Musk issued on his social media platform X, came just days after the president gave him a celebratory Oval Office farewell that marked the end of his work for the administration, where he spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency.

"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore," Musk posted on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."

The legislation, which has passed the House and is currently under debate in the Senate, would curtail subsidies that benefit Tesla, Musk's electric automaker.

The tech billionaire followed his criticism with a threat aimed at Republicans.

"In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote in another X post.

It's a sharp shift for Musk, the world's richest person who spent at least US$250 million (NZ$416 million) supporting Trump's campaign last year. He previously pledged to help defeat Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump, but now he's suggesting voting them out if they advance the president's legislative priority.

However, it's unclear how Musk will follow through on his criticism. He recently said that he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns, though he left the door open to political involvement "if I see a reason".

The tech titan's missives could cause headaches for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who face conflicting demands from Trump and their party's wealthiest benefactor.

Alex Conant, a Republican strategist, said "it’s not helpful" to have Musk criticising the legislation, but he doesn’t expect lawmakers to side with Musk over Trump.

"Senate Republicans are not going to let the tax cuts expire," Conant said. "It just makes leadership’s job that much harder to wrangle the holdouts."

Trump can change the outcome in Republican primaries with his endorsements; Musk doesn’t wield that level of influence, Conant said.

"No matter what Elon Musk or anybody else says — and I don’t want to diminish him because I don’t think that’s fair — it’s still going to be second fiddle to President Trump," said Republican West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito.

Musk's business interests stand to take a hit if lawmakers approve Trump's bill, which would slash funding for electric vehicles and related technologies. Musk is the chief executive of Tesla, the nation's largest electric vehicle manufacturer, and SpaceX, which has massive defence contracts.

Last month, Musk said he was "disappointed" by the spending bill, a much milder criticism than the broadside he leveled on Tuesday (local time).

The budget package seeks to extend tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term at the White House, and add new ones he campaigned on. It also includes a massive build-up of US$350 billion (NZ$583 billion) for border security, deportations and national security.

To defray some of the lost tax revenue to the government and limit piling onto the nation’s US$36 trillion (NZ$60 trillion) debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services.

Musk’s post threw another hurdle in front of Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s already complex task to pass a bill in time for Trump to achieve his goal of signing it by July 4. The South Dakota Republican has few votes to spare in the GOP's slim 53-seat majority.

Two of the Senate’s most fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly backed Musk.

"We can and must do better," Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wrote on X. Utah Senator Mike Lee said, "federal spending has become excessive," adding that it causes inflation and "weaponises government".

Still, Trump enjoys fierce loyalty among the GOP base, and in the end, his opinion may be the only one that matters.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt played down Musk's criticism.

"The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," Leavitt said, and Musk’s post "doesn’t change the president’s opinion".

The tension in the GOP delighted Democrats, who found themselves in the unlikely position of siding with Musk. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than US$4.5 trillion (NZ$7.5 trillion) in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home.

"We’re in complete agreement," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said of Musk. The New York Democratic lawmaker stood alongside a poster-sized printout of Musk's post during a Capitol news conference.

The last time Musk weighed in significantly on legislation, the scenario was far different. His power was ascendant after the election, with Trump joining him for a rocket test in Texas and appointing him to spearhead the Department of Government Efficiency.

During the transition period, Musk started whipping up opposition to legislation that would prevent a government shutdown, posting about it repeatedly on X, his social media platform. Trump soon weighed in, encouraging Republicans to back out of a bipartisan deal. Lawmakers eventually patched together a new agreement.

This could be fun to watch. How far will Trump go to punish an ally who is openly disagreeing with him ?

It might even do something helpful.

[Solauren]

Did Musk change his self-medication again?

[bilateralrope]

When Even Trump-Friendly Companies Won’t Work With Law Firms That Caved To Trump

from the failed-that-test dept
Wed, Jun 4th 2025 11:04am - Mike Masnick

If asked, do you think corporate America would prefer to hire (1) lawyers who fight, or (2) lawyers who immediately surrender, I think you’d know the answer.

And now we have some fairly unambiguous empirical data to support what the answer is.

Oracle’s Larry Ellison loves Trump. Morgan Stanley contributed one of their top execs to the Trump administration. But even they won’t work with law firms that capitulated to Trump’s bogus executive orders targeting lawyers who dared to challenge him in court.

The WSJ reports that at least 11 major companies are dumping law firms that struck deals with Trump’s obviously bogus executive orders targeting lawyers. Meanwhile, the firms that fought back keep winning in court and picking up the fleeing clients.

The message from corporate America shouldn’t require an expert at $1,000+ per hour to decipher: if you won’t fight for yourself against an obviously frivolous legal threat, why would anyone pay you to fight for them?

Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving—or intend to give—more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions.

Among them are technology giant Oracle, investment bank Morgan Stanley, an airline and a pharmaceutical company. Microsoft expressed reservations about working with a firm that struck a deal, and another such firm stopped representing McDonald’s in a case a few months before a scheduled trial.

In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. The general counsel of a manufacturer of medical supplies said that if firms facing White House pressure “don’t have a hard line,” they don’t have any line at all.

When these law firm executive orders first came down, plenty of legal commentators called it a “no win situation.” Some argued that if you didn’t cave, clients would leave, because the firm would have a target on its back from the executive orders (and if those EOs were upheld, it would limit the ability of the law firms to do any business at all). But it looks like the reverse is true. The EOs are being tossed out easily, and the firms that fought them look like fighters.

The economics here are pretty straightforward. If you’re a general counsel, you have two main concerns about your outside lawyers: (1) Can they win? and (2) Can I trust them to fight for me when it matters? The firms that caved just answered both questions with a resounding “no.”

The firms that caved look just as weak and bad at their jobs as many of us expected.

Not long after Latham struck a deal in April, the firm’s chair, Richard Trobman, met with Morgan Stanley’s chief legal officer, Eric Grossman, people familiar with the meeting said. Grossman heard him out about the firm’s reasoning for striking a deal and acknowledged that companies have to do what is best for themselves.

Soon after that meeting, Grossman and other Morgan Stanley lawyers communicated to law firms targeted by the White House that hadn’t signed deals that they were looking to give them new business, the people familiar with the meeting said.

[….]

The day after Paul Weiss struck its deal, female general counsels gathered for a conference in Washington. During a panel at the Women’s General Counsel Network event, a lawyer stood up and said her company had taken steps that morning to pull its business from Paul Weiss. The lawyer received thunderous applause.

[….]

In April, the general counsel of Microsoft, Jon Palmer, discussed with leaders of Latham his concerns about the deal the firm had struck, including how it could affect Latham’s ability to represent Microsoft, especially before the government, according to people familiar with the discussion.

On April 17, Microsoft put its concerns in writing, removing Latham from a list of about a dozen preferred firms that it has vetted to handle outside legal work, according to a document described to the Journal.

Here’s the thing about the biggest law firms: they’re essentially selling confidence. When you hire BigLaw at $1,000+ per hour, you’re not just buying legal expertise — you can often get that much cheaper. You’re buying the confidence that when things get really ugly, your lawyers will be the last people standing in the room.

These firms spectacularly failed that test. They faced a legal threat that was so obviously bogus that conservative judges keep laughing it out of court, and their response was immediate capitulation, with bizarre justifications about how this bending of the knee would somehow work. It’s like hiring a bodyguard who runs away at the first sign of trouble.

The market’s response makes perfect sense. If you’re Oracle or Microsoft, you have lawyers on speed dial because someday you’re going to face an existential legal threat — maybe antitrust, maybe a massive lawsuit, maybe regulatory overreach. When that day comes, do you want lawyers who fold under pressure, or lawyers who fight?

The firms that caved have answered that question for everyone to see. They’ve essentially put up a giant billboard saying “We Will Fold Under Pressure” and then acted surprised when clients started shopping elsewhere.

Bending the knee has its own costs.

[bilateralrope]

'Very disappointed' - Trump's relationship with Musk sours further

President Donald Trump threatened to cut Elon Musk’s government contracts as their fractured alliance rapidly escalated into a public feud.

Hours after Trump lamented his breakup with Musk and said he was “disappointed” in his former backer and adviser and Musk responded on social media, Trump escalated the feud by threatening to use the US government to hurt Musk’s bottom line.

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote on his social media network. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

Earlier, as Trump sat in the Oval Office with Germany's leader, he lamented his soured relationship with Musk, his adviser-turned-social media antagonist.

Trump said he was “very disappointed” with Musk after the billionaire former backer lambasted the president’s signature bill of tax cuts and spending plans.

“Whatever,” Musk wrote on his social media platform while responding to Trump in real time.

Musk later offered up an especially stinging insult to a president sensitive about his standing among voters: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” Musk retorted. “Such ingratitude,” Musk said in a follow-up post.

Politicians and their donor patrons rarely see eye to eye. But the magnitude of Musk’s support for Trump, spending at least US$250 million backing his campaign, and the scope of free reign the president gave him to slash and delve into the government with the Department of Government Efficiency is eclipsed only by the speed of their falling out.

Musk announced his support for Trump shortly after the then-candidate was nearly assassinated on stage at a Butler, Pennsylvania, rally last July. News of Musk's political action committee in support of Trump's election came days later.

Musk soon became a close adviser and frequent companion, memorably leaping in the air behind Trump on stage at a rally in October. Once Trump was elected, the tech billionaire stood behind him as he took the oath of office, flew with him on Air Force One for weekend stays at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, slept in the White House’s Lincoln Bedroom at the president's invitation and joined his Cabinet meetings wearing a MAGA hat (sometimes more than one).

'I think he missed the place'

“I’ll be honest, I think he missed the place,” Trump said today. “He got out there, and all of a sudden he wasn’t in this beautiful Oval Office.”

Musk bid farewell to Trump last week in a subdued news conference in the Oval Office, where he sported a black eye that he said came from his young son but that seemed to be a metaphor for his messy time in government service.

Trump, who rarely misses an opportunity to zing his critics on appearance, brought it up today.

“I said, ‘Do you want a little makeup? We’ll get you a little makeup.’ Which is interesting,” Trump said.

The Republican president’s comments came as Musk has stewed for days on social media about Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” warning that it will increase the federal deficit. Musk has called the bill a “disgusting abomination.”

“He hasn’t said bad about me personally, but I’m sure that will be next,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “But I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot.”

Observers had long wondered if the friendship between the two brash billionaires known for lobbing insults online would flame out in spectacular fashion. It did, in less than a year.

“Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore,” Trump said.

The president said some people who leave his administration “miss it so badly” and “actually become hostile".

“It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it,” he said.

He brushed aside the billionaire's efforts to get him elected last year, including a $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes in Pennsylvania. The surge of cash Musk showed he was willing to spend seemed to set him up as a highly coveted ally for Republicans going forward, but his split with Trump, the party's leader, raises questions about whether they or any others will see such a campaign windfall in the future.

'False'

Trump said Musk, the CEO and founder of Tesla, “only developed a problem” with the bill because it rolls back tax credits for electric vehicles.

“False,” Musk fired back on his social media platform as the president continued speaking. “This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”

In another post, he said Trump could keep the spending cuts but “ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.”

The bill would unleash trillions of dollars in tax cuts and slash spending but also spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade and leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which for decades has served as the official scorekeeper of legislation in Congress.

Besides Musk being “disturbed” by the electric vehicle tax credits, Trump said another point of contention was Musk’s promotion of Jared Isaacman to run NASA.

Trump withdrew Isaacman’s nomination over the weekend, days after Musk left his government role.

“I didn’t think it was appropriate,” Trump said, calling Isaacman “totally a Democrat".

Musk, reverting to his main form of political activity before he joined forces with Trump, continued slinging his responses on social media.

He shared some posts Trump made over a decade ago criticising Republicans for their spending, musings made when he, too, was just a billionaire lobbing his thoughts on social media.

“Where is the man who wrote these words?” Musk wrote. “Was he replaced by a body double!?”

I'm hoping this escalates and keeps Trump distracted. One of them hurting the other sounds good to me.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Saw this one coming a mile off, I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner