Tag: U.S. Justice Department

US judge blocks DOJ subpoenas to federal reserve, citing ‘Thin’ evidence in Powell probe
A US judge has blocked subpoenas issued by Donald Trump’s Department of Justice to the Federal Reserve, in a major blow to prosecutors’ criminal investigation into chair Jay Powell and a victory for the central bank.
James Boasberg, a US federal judge in the District of Columbia, wrote in an opinion unsealed on Friday that prosecutors were using their probe into renovations of the Fed’s headquarters to force Powell to “knuckle under” and bend to Trump’s relentless calls to slash borrowing costs.
“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will,” Boasberg wrote.
The judge said the Trump administration had “produced essentially zero evidence” to suspect Powell of a crime, adding: “Its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the court can only conclude that they are pretextual.”
Boasberg’s ruling will stymie the criminal investigation into Powell related to cost overruns on the Fed’s $2.5bn headquarters renovation project.

Global central bankers and lawmakers, including some members of Trump’s Republican Party, have expressed grave concern over the investigation, which they view as an unprecedented attempt at eroding the independence of the world’s most important central bank.
Powell in January called the move an “unprecedented action” from the DoJ, saying it was an attempt to rein in the Fed’s independence.
Trump has relentlessly criticised Powell of being a “moron” and a “stubborn mule” for declining to sharply reduce rates. Trump has also sought to sack Fed governor Lisa Cook, in a move that was blocked by a lower court judge and later argued before the US Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in the coming months.

Jeanine Pirro takes aim at the ruling by James Boasberg on Friday. (Reuters)
The president has denied any involvement in the DoJ probe, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. The Fed declined to comment.
In a fiery press conference shortly after the opinion was published, Jeanine Pirro, US attorney for the District of Columbia, tore into Boasberg, who she described as an “activist judge”. Pirro vowed to appeal against the ruling, which she said had “neutered the grand jury’s ability to investigate crime.”
“Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve,” Pirro said. “That is wrong, and it is without legal authority.”
The DoJ investigation, which was launched in January, has already had far-reaching consequences for Trump, prompting Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina to hold up the process to confirm Powell’s successor. Tillis has said he will block any Trump appointee to the Fed until the DoJ probe into Powell is “resolved”.
Trump in late January nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell as chair when his term ends in May. Warsh needs to be confirmed by the Senate in order to take up his post.
Tillis on Friday said Boasberg’s ruling confirmed “just how weak and frivolous” the criminal investigation into Powell was, adding: “It is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence.
“We all know how this is going to end,” Tillis said, adding Pirro’s office should “save itself further embarrassment and move on”.
March 13, 2026
Bill Clinton Denies Knowledge of Epstein Crimes in House Deposition: ‘I Did Nothing Wrong’
Former President Bill Clinton, long dogged by scandals involving his personal conduct and questionable associations, faced a grueling six-hour deposition before the House Oversight Committee on Friday, where he repeatedly denied any awareness of Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous sex trafficking operations.
In a performance that Republicans praised as cooperative but critics dismissed as evasive, Clinton insisted he “saw nothing that gave me pause” during his multiple interactions with the disgraced financier, whose crimes against underage girls have shocked the nation and exposed a web of elite enablers.
“I did nothing wrong,” Clinton declared, a refrain that echoes his past defenses amid allegations of misconduct, but one that rings hollow to many given the mounting evidence of his proximity to Epstein’s predatory world.
The closed-door session, held in Chappaqua, New York, near the Clintons’ residence to avoid a public spectacle in Washington, marked a historic low for a former commander-in-chief: the first time a ex-president has been compelled to testify under subpoena before Congress.
This came after months of negotiations and threats of contempt charges, underscoring the gravity of the committee’s probe into Epstein’s network—a sordid empire built on exploitation, manipulation, and connections to powerful figures, including those in influential financial circles that Epstein navigated with ease. Republicans, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), hailed Clinton’s appearance as a step toward transparency, while Democrats accused the GOP of partisan gamesmanship aimed at shielding President Donald Trump from similar scrutiny.
Clinton’s testimony followed that of his wife, Hillary Clinton, who appeared the day before and claimed she never met Epstein—a stark contrast to her husband’s documented ties. In his opening statement, released publicly, Clinton portrayed his relationship with Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” that ended well before the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing,” he said. “I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn’t do.” Yet, skeptics point to flight logs showing Clinton aboard Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” private jet at least 26 times between 2001 and 2003, often without Secret Service detail, raising questions about what exactly transpired on those trips to destinations including Epstein’s private island, Little St. James.
Lawmakers grilled Clinton on a trove of recently unsealed documents from the Department of Justice, including photographs depicting him in compromising settings with redacted women—images that have fueled speculation about his involvement.

Jeffrey Epstein (left) and Bill Clinton (center) in a photo released by the justice department on Friday. (Department Of Justice/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock)
One particularly infamous photo showed Clinton in a jacuzzi with an unidentified woman, her face obscured. Sources familiar with the deposition told outlets that Clinton denied knowing her or engaging in any sexual activity, a response he repeated for each image presented. “No matter how many photos you show me,” he stated, “it won’t change the fact that I saw nothing wrong and did nothing wrong.”
But these denials do little to dispel the cloud of suspicion, especially given Epstein’s modus operandi of using his wealth and connections—often within elite, predominantly Jewish social networks—to lure and abuse vulnerable girls, all while hobnobbing with global leaders like Clinton.
The committee also probed Epstein’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable entity that has faced its own controversies over foreign influence and opaque finances. Epstein contributed tens of thousands of dollars, and records show him visiting the White House multiple times during Clinton’s presidency.
Clinton maintained that these interactions were innocuous, focused on philanthropy, but critics argue they exemplify how Epstein ingratiated himself with power brokers to mask his criminal enterprise. “We are only here because he hid it from everyone so well for so long,” Clinton said in his prepared remarks, shifting blame squarely onto Epstein—a convenient narrative that ignores the red flags many believe should have alerted someone of Clinton’s stature.
Republicans on the panel, including Comer, described Clinton as “charming” and “very cooperative,” noting he answered every question without invoking the Fifth Amendment. “He’s a charming individual, obviously,” Comer remarked, adding that the testimony “exonerated President Trump” by recounting a early-2000s golf tournament conversation where Trump allegedly told Clinton he severed ties with Epstein over a land deal dispute. This anecdote, volunteered by Clinton, aligns with Trump’s longstanding claim that he distanced himself from Epstein before the 2008 charges.
Trump himself weighed in from the White House, expressing reluctance about the deposition: “I like Bill Clinton, and I don’t like seeing him deposed.” Yet, Democrats seized on the moment to demand Trump testify, pointing to his own extensive socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and 2000s, as well as mentions in Epstein-related files.

From left, Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, Epstein and Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida on February 12, 2000 [File: Davidoff Studios/Getty Images]
The broader investigation stems from Epstein’s 2019 death in custody—ruled a suicide but mired in conspiracy theories—and the subsequent conviction of his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, for sex trafficking. Epstein’s crimes, which involved grooming and abusing dozens of underage girls, often at his lavish properties, have implicated a roster of high-profile names, from British royalty to Wall Street titans.
The House probe, launched amid calls for accountability, has drawn bipartisan support but devolved into partisan sniping. Democrats accuse Republicans of selective outrage, noting the Justice Department’s reluctance under Trump to release records on allegations against him, including a claim of sexual abuse of a minor—which the department is reviewing.
Clinton’s spokesperson has reiterated that he cut ties with Epstein before the 2006 charges and was unaware of the crimes, denying any visits to Little St. James. However, a 2025 FBI document lists Clinton among figures with unverified sexual assault allegations tied to Epstein’s orbit, though no charges have been filed. This deposition, while not accusing Clinton of wrongdoing, revives painful memories of his own impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair and allegations of sexual misconduct from women like Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones—patterns that, for detractors, make his Epstein denials less credible.
As transcripts from both Clintons’ testimonies are expected to be released soon—possibly as early as this weekend—the political fallout intensifies. Republicans frame the sessions as vindication for Trump, with Comer slamming Democrats for “weaponizing” the probe.
Democrats, like top panel member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), counter that the precedent now demands Trump’s appearance, along with others like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who admitted visiting Epstein’s island.
February 27, 2026
Federal Reserve Challenges Justice Department Subpoenas in Powell Probe
WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve is waging a behind-closed-doors legal challenge to a pair of subpoenas issued as part of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell, according to people familiar with the matter.
Pirro, a longtime ally of President Trump, opened the probe to examine whether Powell gave false testimony to Congress last summer about the central bank’s building-renovation project. The move prompted an unprecedented public response from Powell, who in a Jan. 11 video statement said the investigation was a pretext for Trump’s continuing campaign to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates and end the independence of the central bank.

The Fed, in sealed proceedings, is asking a judge to quash the subpoenas, which could reduce or eliminate its obligation to respond. Its specific legal arguments couldn’t immediately be learned. It isn’t uncommon, especially in high-profile investigations, for a subpoena recipient to challenge prosecutors’ demands as being overly broad or seeking information protected by legal privilege.
The fight is taking place out of public view because of secrecy rules that apply to criminal investigations pending before a grand jury.
Pirro was present during a White House event on Jan. 8 where Trump excoriated his U.S. attorneys for not moving fast enough to prosecute his favored targets. The Justice Department sent the Fed a pair of subpoenas the following day. The subpoenas asked the Fed to respond toward the end of January.
Republicans have been looking for an off-ramp to the standoff because it is threatening to delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh, the former Fed governor Trump has chosen to succeed Powell when his term as chair ends in May.
“There were subpoenas issued. But that doesn’t have to mean that there are charges,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNBC earlier this month. He has also defended the probe, telling CBS in January, “I think that the message is that independence does not mean no accountability.”

Construction on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve building in Washington (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) has repeatedly said he wouldn’t advance any Fed nomination, including Warsh’s, until the Justice Department probe has ended. With all Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee taking the same stand, the 13-11 GOP majority isn’t enough to push a nominee through without him.
Tillis has said the probe was launched outside of traditional channels and has warned about steps that erode investors’ expectations that the central bank will be given reasonable latitude to set interest rates as economic conditions warrant.
The investigation centers on a few minutes of answers Powell provided to questions at a Senate hearing last summer about cost overruns on renovations of two historic buildings. White House officials last year suggested either Powell made false statements about the project’s costs or the Fed failed to update building records, but the furor quickly faded after Trump toured the project with Powell in July.

U.S. Attorney For Washington, DC Jeanine Pirro at a press conference (Image source: Getty Images/Photo by Win McNamee)
Pirro has defended the probe, saying the subpoenas were issued after her office hadn’t received answers to multiple information requests. The inquiry opened in November. A lawyer in Pirro’s office sent two emails to the Fed in December asking for a meeting about the renovation.
Trump has sounded less concerned about resolving the impasse. Pirro is “going to take it to the end and see,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Feb. 2, where he inflated to $4 billion the cost of the $2.5-billion renovation.
February 26, 2026
Justice Department Seeks Dismissal of Steve Bannon Jan. 6 Contempt Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bold move that underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to rectifying what many conservatives view as the weaponized excesses of the previous Biden-era Justice Department, federal prosecutors have formally requested the dismissal of Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol events. This development, filed on Monday, represents a significant victory for Bannon, the fiery conservative strategist and former White House chief advisor, who has long maintained that his prosecution was a politically motivated witch hunt designed to silence dissent against the establishment.
The request, led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro—a no-nonsense prosecutor known for her tough stance on crime and her appearances on Fox News—cites prosecutorial discretion and argues that dropping the charges is “in the interests of justice.” Pirro’s filing, submitted to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who originally oversaw the case, emphasizes that Bannon does not oppose the motion and requests dismissal with prejudice, ensuring the charges cannot be refiled. This comes as a welcome reprieve for Bannon, who endured four months in federal prison in 2024, a sentence many on the right have decried as unjust and emblematic of selective prosecution.
Bannon’s ordeal began in 2021 when the Democrat-led House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot subpoenaed him for testimony and documents. As a vocal supporter of President Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results—efforts rooted in widespread concerns over voting irregularities—Bannon had publicly predicted turmoil on his “War Room” podcast, stating on January 5, 2021, that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The committee targeted him for his insights into the so-called “Green Bay Sweep,” a strategic plan discussed among Trump allies to contest electoral votes from key swing states amid allegations of fraud.

Refusing to comply, Bannon invoked executive privilege, a doctrine protecting presidential communications, despite having left the White House in 2017. Critics on the left painted this as defiance, but conservatives argue it was a legitimate legal stance, especially given Bannon’s advisory role to Trump. The House, under Democratic control, voted to hold him in contempt, and the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland swiftly indicted him on two counts. Bannon’s defense team later offered to testify after Trump waived privilege, but it was too late; a D.C. jury convicted him in 2022, and he was sentenced to prison time.
Throughout his appeals, Bannon has steadfastly claimed he did not willfully defy the subpoena but was following his lawyers’ advice to resolve privilege issues first. An appellate court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to halt his sentence. Yet, Bannon’s resilience shone through—he continued broadcasting his podcast from behind bars and emerged in October 2024 as a martyr figure in conservative circles, railing against what he calls the “deep state” and the “unselect committee” that pursued him.
The Trump administration’s return to power in 2025 has brought swift changes to the DOJ, including the appointment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, both of whom have prioritized dismantling what they describe as politically tainted prosecutions. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Blanche declared, “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” He specifically hailed the Bannon filing as a step to vacate the conviction arising from the “J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed this in a separate Supreme Court filing, urging the justices to remand the case back to Judge Nichols for dismissal. Sauer noted that even post-conviction, prosecutors retain the authority to drop charges if justice demands it—a principle that aligns with conservative values of fairness and limited government overreach.
This isn’t an isolated incident. The administration has already pardoned over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with January 6, framing the event not as an “insurrection” but as a passionate protest against a stolen election. Similar leniency was extended to Peter Navarro, another Trump advisor convicted for defying the same committee; the DOJ announced last year it would no longer defend his conviction, with his appeal ongoing.
The move has drawn predictable outrage from liberal quarters, who accuse the Trump DOJ of cronyism and undermining congressional authority. But for conservatives, it’s a long-overdue correction. Bannon, ever the provocateur, has positioned himself as a frontline warrior against elite corruption, and this dismissal bolsters his narrative. As one of the architects of Trump’s 2016 victory and a key voice in the MAGA movement, Bannon’s exoneration could energize the base ahead of future political battles.

Comparisons have been drawn to other contempt cases, such as the recent House Oversight Committee vote to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify in a Jeffrey Epstein probe. The Clintons eventually “caved,” as Republican Rep. James Comer put it, agreeing to depositions just before a full House vote. Conservatives point to this as evidence of double standards: why were the Clintons spared prosecution while Bannon was jailed?
Legal experts on the right argue that the January 6 committee itself was flawed—lacking bipartisan balance and operating with a partisan agenda. “This dismissal acknowledges that the subpoena was improper from the start,” said a source close to Bannon’s legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Steve has always been about fighting for the forgotten man, and this vindicates his stand against overreach.”
As the nation grapples with ongoing debates over election integrity and government accountability, Bannon’s case highlights the deep divides in American politics. With Trump back in the Oval Office, expect more such reversals as the administration seeks to heal what it sees as wounds inflicted by a vindictive opposition.
Bannon did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but his supporters are already celebrating online, viewing this as a triumph over “lawfare.”
February 9, 2026
Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys Pursued Intelligence Agency Records, Newly Released Documents Reveal
Attorneys for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein filed requests for records retained by American intelligence agencies that could reflect an affiliation with the CIA or whether the National Security Agency retained information about him, according to documents released by the Justice Department.
This comes amid suspicions that Epstein’s operation, entangled with a circle of predominantly Rich-rooted financiers and influencers, served as a honeypot for agencies like the CIA, FBI, Mossad, and MI6, holding the republic hostage to hidden scandals.
The documents, part of a mandated disclosure from federal probes into the disgraced financier who died in custody in 2019 (officially a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound), detail requests from attorneys Martin Weinberg and Darren K. Indyke. In 2011, the CIA responded to Weinberg that it found no “open or otherwise acknowledged” affiliation records from 1999 to 2011, but neither confirmed nor denied classified connections, citing national security—a classic agency dodge that only deepens distrust in these opaque institutions. The NSA, in 2014, rejected Indyke’s FOIA appeal for 14 years of Epstein-related materials, again invoking secrecy to avoid exposing “intelligence sources and methods.”

These denials align with persistent whispers of Epstein’s intelligence links: An undercover FBI informant reportedly believed he was a “co-opted Mossad agent,” citing calls involving attorney Alan Dershowitz (who denies wrongdoing) and former Israeli PM Ehud Barak. Epstein’s emails show him facilitating deals between Barak and UAE figures, and he boasted insider knowledge on events like a 2016 Turkish coup tip-off from Russia or a €500bn Euro bailout.
His Russian expatriate tech investor ties, scrutinized by U.S. intel, and meetings with William J. Burns (Biden’s CIA director, who regrets the encounters) add layers. Burns claims ignorance of Epstein’s crimes, but such “brief” diplomat chats raise eyebrows in a world where agencies like the CIA and Mossad allegedly exploit elite networks for leverage.
Trump, who once wished Maxwell “well” and hasn’t ruled out her pardon despite her recent plea for clemency in exchange for testimony (potentially clearing him and Clinton), gets a mixed nod: Pro for not rushing leniency amid base furor, anti for administration figures like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick facing resignation calls over Epstein island plans (he denies involvement).
Republicans like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna decry any mercy for “child predators,” yet the party’s oversight probes seem selective, avoiding deeper dives into bipartisan entanglements. Democrats, with Clinton’s island visits and jet rides, push for transparency but conveniently ignore their own vulnerabilities—both parties complicit in a system possibly blackmailed by Epstein’s web.
Poland’s reopened inquiry into Epstein-Russia links, dismissed by Moscow, exemplifies global ripples. As unredacted files trickle out, the blackmail theory persists: Was Epstein’s circle—heavy with Jewish heritage like his own and Maxwell’s—a front for controlling elites, with agencies turning a blind eye or worse? Until full disclosure, America remains ensnared.
February 8, 2026
Large Law Firms Hesitant to Take On Free Immigration Cases
Hours after Donald J. Trump was sworn in for a second term, he issued an executive order laying the groundwork for mass deportations of immigrants and denying them legal assistance.
Public interest groups focused on immigrant rights teamed up to fight the order and called in Gibson Dunn, a major law firm with the resources to help take on the White House. In January, Gibson Dunn, working with the groups, sued the Trump administration seeking to restore legal help for immigrants facing deportation.
Two months later, Gibson Dunn changed its tune.
Even though lawyers from the elite law firm had already been working with the public interest groups on drafting another lawsuit, Gibson Dunn said it could not put its name on this latest case, according to five people with direct knowledge of the matter who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because they feared alienating Gibson Dunn.
Lawyers from Gibson Dunn explained that it was afraid of incurring Mr. Trump’s wrath if the firm was associated publicly with a lawsuit that sought to restore legal representation for unaccompanied immigrant children, the five people said. Gibson Dunn is not the only large law firm shying away from immigration litigation.
Since March, Mr. Trump has targeted numerous large law firms with executive orders that would cripple their businesses by barring them from representing clients before the federal government. Many of the big firms have opted to reach deals with the White House to avoid Mr. Trump’s issuing an executive order against them. Other firms have challenged the orders in court.
Gibson Dunn has not received such an executive order or reached a deal with Mr. Trump.
But Gibson Dunn’s wariness about the recent immigration lawsuit shows that even firms that have not been targeted directly by Mr. Trump are declining to participate in legal work that challenges his agenda.
Michael Lukens, the executive director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, one of the public interest groups that worked with Gibson Dunn on the immigration cases, acknowledged that he was “seeing the industry shy away from engaging in immigration pro bono.” But, he said, “Gibson Dunn had stepped up” by representing public interest groups, providing technical support and continuing to defend individual clients.
He credited the firm, which the Amica Center has worked with for two decades, for its pro bono support through the years.
Groups like the Amica Center have long relied on big law firms to provide legions of young lawyers and paralegals who can help prepare cases free of charge. Traditionally, pro bono work has been intended to help the poor and defenseless.
It is a drastic change from Mr. Trump’s first term, when many big law firms frequently challenged the administration. Skadden Arps has a foundation that funds a fellowship program that enables young lawyers to work for public interest groups. In June 2017, a posting on the Skadden Foundation’s website celebrated the work of a fellow who had helped challenge Mr. Trump’s order barring people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. That same year, Skadden rolled out an online platform to quickly pair low-income immigrants with legal services.
Some public interest groups expected that Skadden would be a reliable partner on immigration cases during the second administration. But since Skadden reached a deal with the White House in March to avert an executive order, the law firm has declined to join a public interest group on a lawsuit challenging one of Mr. Trump’s immigration policies, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Davis Polk was another big law firm that helped people ensnared in Mr. Trump’s immigration policies during his first term. In January 2017, the firm deployed some of its lawyers to Kennedy International Airport with people who were searching for family members had been detained as part of the Muslim ban.
But shortly after Mr. Trump won re-election, a prominent nonprofit reached out to Davis Polk to ask if the law firm would do research about the legality of one of Mr. Trump’s immigration proposals. The firm simply said no, according to a lawyer with the organization who asked to speak without identifying her group.
The lawyer interpreted Davis Polk’s response as “anticipatory obedience,” in part because the law firm had done similar work in the past. The firm has not been targeted with an executive order or settled with the White House.
Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a nonprofit that litigates cases for immigrants and pushes for their rights, called the large firms’ recent pivots “part of the chilling effect” of Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
“It has gotten much harder to get law firms to take a case on pro bono,” Ms. Shebaya said.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Trump has made it clear he does not want elite law firms doing work that undermines his agenda. In his executive orders, he has criticized firms for representing clients he doesn’t like and conducting “harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices.”
Instead, he has been requiring firms that settled with him to work pro bono on causes favorable to his administration, such as veterans affairs and fighting antisemitism.
Last week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that said law firms could be enlisted to defend police officers accused of brutality.
Public interest groups, aware of the pressure facing major law firms, are wary about criticizing the firms that are turning down immigration cases. Officials with some of these groups said they hoped that law firms would become partners with them again when Mr. Trump’s pressure started to wane.
Supreme Court Attorney Deepak Gupta Wants More Competition
“The fact that we’re just 100 days in, and the Trump administration has already been incredibly successful at taking some of its legal opposition off the playing field is truly terrifying,” said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer whose firm has sued the Trump administration on behalf of a fired member of the National Labor Relations Board and a union representing employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
For now, public interest groups are seeking new partners. One of those is David Zimmer, a lawyer in Boston, who recently started his own firm with two other longtime lawyers. Mr. Zimmer, who left the large law firm Goodwin Procter, where he was a partner focused on appeals, said he had already been approached by public interest organizations looking for pro bono help on immigration cases.
David Zimmer (Harvard Law School)
“We opened our doors in March, and have been approached to handle cases that big firms no longer wanted to be associated with,” Mr. Zimmer said.
Democracy Forward and Public Citizen, two large public interest legal groups, also said they were trying to add staff to the fill in the gaps left by large law firms declining to work on cases. Democracy Forward recently hired a number of lawyers who previously worked for the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Democracy Forward is one of the lead attorneys on 59 cases against the administration. Those cases are among the roughly 350 lawsuits that have been filed challenging Trump administration policies, according to a New York Times tally.
“We are seeing exponential increases in demand for our work,” said Skye Perryman, the chief executive of Democracy Forward. (Shuran Huang /The New York Times)
“Large law firms that were frequent defenders of the rule of law have been unwilling and unable to take up that mantle,” said Skye Perryman, the chief executive of Democracy Forward. “We are seeing exponential increases in demand for our work, and we are going to continue to encourage the private bar.”
May 6, 2025
Harvard Saying ‘No’ to Trump Is a Really Big Deal
Harvard University is 140 years older than the United States, has an endowment greater than the G.D.P. of nearly 100 countries and has educated eight American presidents. So if an institution was going to stand up to the Trump administration’s war on academia, Harvard would be at the top of the list.
Harvard did that forcefully on Monday in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath, rejecting the Trump administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum. Some commentators went so far as to say that Harvard’s decision would empower law firms, the courts, the media and other targets of the White House to push back as well.
“This is of momentous, momentous significance,” said J. Michael Luttig, a prominent former federal appeals court judge revered by many conservatives. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”
Michael S. Roth, who is the president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”
Within hours of Harvard’s decision, federal officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to the university, along with a $60 million contract.
That is a fraction of the $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives, with $7 billion going to the university’s 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., including Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The remaining $2 billion goes to research grants directly for Harvard, including for space exploration, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and tuberculosis.
It was not immediately clear what programs the funding freeze would affect.
Harvard, the nation’s richest as well as oldest university, is the most prominent object of the administration’s campaign to purge “woke” ideology from America’s college campuses. The administration’s demands include sharing its hiring data with the government and bringing in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse.”
Columbia University, which faced a loss of $400 million in federal funding, last month agreed to major concessions the government demanded, including that it install new oversight of its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department.
Columbia University faculty at a rally on Monday against federal funding cuts. The university last month agreed to major concessions that the Trump administration demanded. Credit…Graham Dickie/The New York Times
In a letter on Monday, Harvard’s president, Alan M. Garber, refused to stand down. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,” he wrote.
The administration’s fight with Harvard, which had an endowment of $53.2 billion in 2024, is one that President Trump and Stephen Miller, a powerful White House aide, want to have. In the administration’s effort to break what it sees as liberalism’s hold on higher education, Harvard is big game. A high-profile court battle would give the White House a platform to continue arguing that the left has become synonymous with antisemitism, elitism and suppression of free speech.
Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist who is also a president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, said on Monday that it was “truly Orwellian” and self-contradictory to have the government force viewpoint diversity on the university. He said it would also lead to absurdities.
“Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he said.
Harvard has not escaped the problems that roiled campuses nationwide after the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. In his letter, Dr. Garber said the university had taken steps to address antisemitism, support diverse viewpoints and protect free speech and dissent.
Those same points were made in a letter to the administration from two lawyers representing Harvard, William A. Burck and Robert K. Hur.
Mr. Burck is also an outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organization and represented the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in the deal it recently reached with the Trump administration.
Mr. Hur, who worked in the Justice Department in Mr. Trump’s first term, was the special counsel who investigated President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s handling of classified documents and termed him “an elderly man with a poor memory,” enraging Mr. Biden.
Both lawyers understand the legal workings of the current administration, an expertise of benefit to Harvard.
“Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community,” Mr. Burck and Mr. Hur wrote in the letter, addressed to the acting general counsels of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and to a commissioner within the General Services Administration. “But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”
April 16, 2025