The Dictatorship

What’s exposed by the Justice Department’s reversal on Trump’s campaign against law firms

Published

4 months ago

March 6, 2026

Tues. 5, 2026, 7:49 PM EST

ByMary McCord

The Department of Justice both embarrassed and exposed itself this week in its handling of the appeals of federal court orders striking down presidential executive orders against four high-profile law firms.

First, the department embarrassed itself by reversing course and moving Tuesday morning to withdraw motions it had filed Monday evening to dismiss its appeals. Four different judges had held that the executive orders violated the First Amendment because they retaliated against the law firms for representing people and causes President Donald Trump dislikes.

Second, the department exposed itself as a purely political actor because every lawyer in the department knows that the federal court rulings were correct and that the executive orders are indefensible.

The department exposed itself as a purely political actor because every lawyer in the department knows that the federal court rulings were correct and that the executive orders are indefensible.

The administration’s efforts and the resulting judicial orders are worthy of careful review. The president began blacklisting law firms last March — using executive orders to, among other things, direct federal departments and agencies to prevent the firms’ lawyers from entering federal government buildings and engaging with federal employees; to revoke their lawyers’ security clearances; and to cancel contracts with companies that do business with the firms. Four law firms subject to the orders filed suit.

Four judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents swiftly issued temporary restraining orders barring the provisions that made it nearly impossible for the firms to continue to represent clients that had business with the federal government, threatening their very existence. Two of those emergency orders were issued within hours of the law firms seeking them; the other two within a day. The cases all proceeded quickly to final judgment with the same result: All judges concluded that the orders violated the First Amendment rights of the law firms.

(Shamefully, other law firms that wanted to avoid being blacklisted entered into agreements with the administration to provide hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of pro bono work to causes favored by the president, raising ethical issues for the lawyers at those firms and the appearance of pay-to-play.)

The judges who ruled in the law firms’ favor didn’t mince words. Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrotequoting a recent Supreme Court case: “[R]etaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work — and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward — violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not ‘use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’” He also warned, “More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.”

Judge Beryl Howella Barack Obama appointee, put it even more succinctlyborrowing from Shakespeare: “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’” the executive order “takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”

Judges, like all lawyers, know why this is so important. As Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, put it“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting.” Without lawyers to advocate for people and causes a president disfavors, even obviously unlawful executive actions could go unchallenged.

With the court decisions stacked so overwhelmingly against the government, one could wonder why the department appealed the lower court rulings in the first place.

With the court decisions stacked so overwhelmingly against the government, one could wonder why the department appealed the lower court rulings in the first place. But it isn’t unusual for the Department of Justice to file a notice of appeal of an adverse ruling even while it is still considering whether to go forward. Decisions like these, at least when I was in the department, were not made by line-level attorneys. The decision to appeal, especially in high-profile cases, would be made by the solicitor general. Today that’s John Sauer, a former personal attorney to President Trump.

Sauer is a seasoned advocate. He famously won Trump v. United Statesthe 2024 case in which the Supreme Court gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for exercising “core constitutional powers” — including directing the Department of Justice to launch “sham” investigations into election fraud — and at least “presumptive” immunity for other official acts.

Whoever made the decision to dismiss the appeals, you can bet that in this administration it would have been considered at the highest levels. That means it likely would have been blessed by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — another former personal attorney to Trump — and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial. Although the Justice Department has, under their leadership, become a tool for enforcing the president’s political whims, Blanche, Bondi and Sauer are all experienced enough to know that appealing the district court decisions was a sure loser.

Until the recent tariff decisionthe Trump administration has had a winning record at the Supreme Court, and Justice Department leadership presumably preferred to keep it that way. With no hope of winning in the D.C. Circuit — which would have been the next stop for the four cases — and no reason to want to seek review in the Supreme Court and risk losing there, the smart move was to cut their losses and dismiss the appeals. Another reason to think department leadership recognized this: They had already made the decision last spring not to ask the Supreme Court to stay the district courts’ temporary injunctions, something they have done in so many other cases.

They knew then, as we all know now, that the blacklisting orders were textbook First Amendment retaliation.

So what happened to cause this legal about-face? Was it the headlines calling out the decision to dismiss the appeal? A call from the president or fear of a call from the president? Whatever the specific motivation, there is no reason to think that Justice Department leadership saw the legal merits of the cases change overnight. Instead, the department has embarrassed and exposed itself yet again.

Mary McCord

Mary B. McCord is an MS Now legal and national security contributor, and co-host of the MS Now podcast “Main Justice.”She is executive director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. She previously served as the acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice and was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia for nearly 20 years.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

15 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

15 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

15 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.