[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on July 25, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

In an early victory for President Donald Trump’s protection racket, the leaders of nine prestigious Biglaw firms collectively paid almost $1 billion and sacrificed their professional integrity to secure peace with his administration – or so they thought.

They were wrong.

The ABA Defends the Profession

In June 2025, the ABA sued the Trump administration for targeting those firms and five others. The ABA claims that Trump has sought to intimidate attorneys from representing clients and causes that he didn’t like.

After a federal judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the ABA’s complaint in April, the ABA subpoenaed the files of Trump adviser Boris Ephsteyn, a key liaison in negotiating settlements between the nine capitulating firms and the White House. The Department of Justice moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential communications is a constitutional safeguard.

Among the problems with the government’s position are that: 1) Ephsteyn is a personal senior counsel to Trump; 2) he has no official position in the White House or the administration; and 3) Trump has not asserted executive privilege. The dispute may well land in the U.S. Supreme Court, which has become Trump’s preferred forum.

The Justice Department Opens a New Front in Trump’s Continuing War

On July 2, the DOJ took a step that seemed odd: It served subpoenas on the nine capitulating firms, as well as four firms that fought Trump’s executive order and won. (It also subpoenaed a firm that took no public action.) Those subpoenas sought some of the same information that the ABA wanted from Ephsteyn:

“All communications on or after January 20, 2025 that [each firm] sent to Boris Epshteyn, received from Boris Epshteyn, or participated in with Boris Epshteyn.” They also sought all communications relating to the negotiations, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of the agreements.

Presumably the Justice Department already has access to the law firms’ communications with Ephsteyn. If so, why did it subpoena the firms for some of the same material, including documents that it didn’t want the White House to provide in response to the ABA’s subpoena?

Possible answers:

1) The DOJ wants the 14 subpoenaed firms to pressure the ABA into withdrawing its subpoena seeking Ephsteyn’s files. If so, it has misread the room badly. In April, the ABA filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of its 400,000 members supporting the four law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders. The ABA isn’t going to save the capitulating Biglaw firms from themselves.

2) The Department doesn’t trust Ephsteyn and/or the White House to provide it with all relevant materials that Ephsteyn has.

3) The subpoenas were a predicate for the DOJ’s next move: trying to disqualify the ABA’s outside counsel – Susman Godfrey, one of the four big firms that won court challenges to Trump’s executive orders.

The Justice Department Tries to Avoid the Plain Language of the Applicable Rule

On July 17, the DOJ moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the ABA. It relies on the governing District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 3.7, which states:

“A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness….” [Emphasis supplied]

The Justice Department argues that the rule “contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter….”

Not quite.

· First, Rule 3.7 does not apply to all “fact witnesses.” It applies only to necessary witnesses. Susman Godfrey lawyers have become potential witnesses only because the DOJ subpoenaed documents from the firm as a whole.

· Second, the rule applies only to individual lawyers within a law firm and, except in special circumstances inapplicable to the ABA case, not to all members of an entire firm. The DOJ has sought to depose as potential witnesses only the chairpersons of the 14 firms.

· Third, the rule focuses on the interests of the client [here, the ABA], not its opponent [the White House]. As the official commentary to Rule 3.7 explains: “If the only reason for not permitting a lawyer to combine the roles of advocate and witness is possible prejudice to the opposing party [the White House], there is no reason to disqualify other lawyers in the testifying lawyer’s firm from acting as advocates in that trial.”

· Finally, the rule bars only an advocate who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial. The case may never reach the trial stage, and Susman Godfrey is free to represent the ABA until it does. Since 1992, DC Bar Ethics Opinion 228 has made that clear.

Meanwhile, the nine capitulating firms now face a quandary: What does Trump want from them? If they comply with the DOJ’s subpoenas, they will disclose some of the very information that the Justice Department is trying block by objecting to the ABA’s subpoena.

Regardless of the DOJ’s motivations, federal judges do not take kindly to an advocate’s misreading of the governing law or ignoring precedent that cuts against its position.

Here’s the real kicker: The subpoenas to Susman Godfrey and its fellow resisting law firms have already backfired. They are more evidence supporting the ABA’s claims of presidential intimidation and harassment.

As for the nine firms that settled – and the many other institutions that have capitulated to Trump – the entire episode demonstrates that appeasing a bully will never produce finality.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on July 16, 2026.]

In 1974, Watergate culminated in the first-ever resignation of a sitting U.S. president. As Richard Nixon left office, his closest advisers were in prison – or heading there. Among them were attorneys who broke the law that they had sworn to uphold, including his former attorney general John Mitchell.

Acting AG Todd Blanche now seeks Mitchell’s job.

· Like Mitchell, Blanche was a successful lawyer at a prominent New York law firm before joining the president’s team.

· Like Mitchell, Blanche has served the president slavishly. He personally interviewed Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell who then got reassigned to a Club Fed; he guided the unlawfully incomplete release of the DOJ’s Epstein files; he spearheaded the effort to prosecute Trump’s perceived enemies; and he defended ICE agents publicly after they killed innocent Americans.

· And like Mitchell, Blanche’s ploys for Trump are sending him to a dark place.

The Latest Court Ruling

Blanche figures prominently in the recent opinion of Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She ruled that Trump’s purported settlement of his $10 billion case against the IRS was a collusive farce.

The government had strong defenses to Trump’s lawsuit claim, including the statute of limitations bar; it asserted none of them. That’s not surprising: Trump controlled the executive branch (including the IRS), which put him on both sides of the supposed dispute. Such a clear conflict of interest meant that there was no real “adverseness” between the plaintiff and defendant and, therefore, no “justiciable case or controversy” for the court to decide.

The purported settlement agreement established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate, among others, January 6 insurrectionists whom Trump had pardoned. A separate, three-paragraph “release order” forever immunized Trump, his family members, and related parties from IRS investigations, claims, and audits that have haunted him for decades.

The court had harsh words – and sanctions – for the lawyers involved in perpetrating this abuse of the court process at taxpayers’ expense:

· Alejandro Brito represented Trump as plaintiff in the case. The judge referred him to the Florida Bar for consideration, review, and determination as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

· Daniel Z. Epstein’s name appeared on the complaint, and he signed the purported “settlement agreement” on behalf of plaintiff Trump. Epstein was a former White House senior associate counsel and special assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Because he is licensed to practice in Texas, not Florida, the judge barred his future applications to practice pro hac vice (special admission for a particular case) in the Southern District of Florida for a year or until her further order.

· Stanley Woodward Jr., associate attorney general under Blanche at the Department of Justice, signed the bogus “settlement agreement” on behalf of the DOJ. The court observed that Woodward had “represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.” The judge directed the clerk to send a copy of her 56-page ruling to the District of Columbia bar, where disciplinary proceedings are ongoing against Woodward.

Blanche’s Plight

And the court turned repeatedly to Todd Blanche:

· His signature alone was on the IRS “release order.” Its attempt to waive tax audits contravened federal law prohibiting “executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.”

· Judge Williams was “extremely troubled” by Blanche’s congressional testimony on May 19, 2026, as to why the settlement agreement was not submitted to the court for review. She found his answer “at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.”

· The court noted, “In this case,… notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse [himself]” from the IRS matter.

· Blanche’s congressional testimony that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” aspect of the settlement would not go forward proved that the entire agreement was collusive: “Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.” That party was Donald Trump.

· Finally, she directed the clerk to send a copy of her ruling to the State Bar of New York, where Blanche is licensed. On June 22, 2026, more than 100 former state and federal judges had already filed a 73-page ethics complaint against him there.

A Freudian Slip and an Unhappy Ending

Early in Blanche’s confirmation hearing on July 15, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked him about his relationship with Trump.

“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before correcting himself to say that he “was” his lawyer.

Blanche’s initial impulse was closer to the mark. And he has already compromised his professional reputation and personal integrity.

In the service of Nixon personally, John Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury in connection with his role in the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up. He spent 19 months in prison and lost his law license.

Will Todd Blanche see how his loyalty to Trump personally – rather than to the nation he has taken an oath to serve – is leading him to an unfortunate destination? Probably not.

Will he learn anything from Judge Williams’s stunning rebuke or the ethics complaints he already faces? Probably not.

Will enough Republican senators stand up and refuse to confirm Blanche, who is blatantly unqualified to be the next attorney general? Probably not.

All Americans will bear the consequences of his failures.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

This article first appeared at Common Dreams on June 30, 2026.

The Watergate scandal revealed President Richard Nixon’s contempt for the Constitution and his systematic abuse of power. At the time, it was one of the darkest chapters in U.S. history, resulting in the first-ever resignation of an American president.

But on June 25, Vice President J.D. Vance told his audience at the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum that Nixon got a bum rap. The uncontested historical record proves otherwise. Vance’s contrary view demonstrates the depths to which he and President Donald Trump have taken the country.

“Facts Are Stubborn Things”

1. In May 1972, a group of men connected with the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex. One of the wiretaps didn’t work, so on June 17, 1972, they broke in again with a new microphone. A security guard saw door locks that had been taped open and called the D.C. police, which caught them red handed. Among the burglars’ possessions was a White House phone number.

2. After declaring falsely that no one on the White House staff was involved in the crime, Nixon acquiesced as his aides provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in “hush money” to the burglars. Then Nixon developed a plan to get the CIA to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into the matter.

3. As Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein pursued the story, a D.C. grand jury summoned witnesses who cracked. Nixon aides – including White House counsel John Dean – testified in nationally televised hearings where Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) asked, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” The answer was “a lot.”

4. With the revelation that Nixon had taped his conversations about the cover-up in the Oval Office, the President sought valiantly to block their production.

5. When special prosecutor Archibald Cox sued to obtain the tapes, Nixon instructed Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. In what became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then told Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, but he resigned too. Finally, Nixon turned to the third highest official in the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, who carried out the order.

6. Firing Cox was the futile act of a desperate man. Bork appointed Leon Jaworski as Cox’s successor, and Jaworski continued to press his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court ordered Nixon to release the tapes, and the public could hear Nixon’s own voice incriminate him.

7. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended articles of impeachment. On August 7, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Sen. Hugh Scott (R-PA), and Rep. John Rhodes (R-AZ) visited the White House to give Nixon the bad news: The full House was going to impeach him, and the Senate would convict him. The next day, Nixon resigned.

Vance’s “Deep State” Fantasies

Vance claimed that Nixon was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy.

“If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon,” Vance continued, “it’s not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions, tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration.”

But the supposed “deep state” actors to which Vance referred consisted of Nixon’s top advisors who turned on him, the most conservative Republicans in Congress, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, and two intrepid reporters at the Washington Post.

Timothy Naftali, a historian at Columbia University’s School of International Public Affairs and the former director of the Nixon library, told The New York Times, “We have more than enough information from the Nixon era to know that there was no intelligence conspiracy against Richard Nixon. He brought his house of cards down upon himself.”

“You can hear him suborn perjury on the tapes,” Naftali told the Washington Post. “He’s telling an intermediary, what to tell someone who’s about to be interviewed by the FBI, what to say and what not to say. You can hear Nixon being told that money had been found to hire teamsters to go and break the bones of demonstrators. That’s all illegal.”

Lies Reveal Character

Prof. Naftali observed that, curiously, Vance had likened Trump to a president who had directed the CIA to subvert the Constitution.

“It’s not as if [Watergate] is a matter of partisan interpretation,” Naftali said. “The evidence is overwhelming. If [Vance] does know all of this, he’s telegraphing the kind of president he hopes to be.”

Vance also claimed that Watergate would have been a 12-hour news story today. He may be correct, but that does not diminish the seriousness of Nixon’s crimes.

As Prof. Naftali observed, “It’s not that Nixon looks better in retrospect, it’s that we look worse.”

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on June 17, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

On Sunday night, President Donald Trump brought the country to a new low. The question is whether the nation has finally bottomed out – and realizes it.

On the White House lawn, Trump hosted Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts cage matches. Fighters attacked each other with their fists, feet, knees, and elbows. Blood spewed everywhere; that was the point.

It wasn’t boxing; the combatants wore gloves with much less padding. It wasn’t professional wrestling; the injuries inflicted were real. It was billed as a sporting event, but as commentators observed, it was really 21^st century cockfighting where the birds are human beings.

Follow the Money

The UFC said that private funding totaling $60 million paid for the event. But it’s not clear that any private money covered the monumental work of the hundreds of staff from seven federal government agencies, or the estimated $10 to $12 million in supplemental security that the District of Columbia incurred (to be reimbursed from federally appropriated funds for federal events).

Beyond the abuse of taxpayers’ dollars, Trump’s profiteering was pervasive.

· “Ultimate Fighting Championship” is a promotional company owned and operated by TKO Group Holdings. Trump owns stock in TKO Group Holdings.

· A day before the fights, Trump’s super PAC MAGA,Inc. held a one-million dollar-a-plate fundraiser at Trump’s Virginia golf club.

· Trump sold a line of Trump-branded UFC medallions for hundreds and – in some cases – thousands of dollars.

· World Liberty Financial was an official sponsor of the event. It’s a Trump-family-created crypto company and issued the stablecoins that some fighters received as bonuses.

· Other corporate sponsors included Crypto.com (its name appeared on each step leading into the cage), Bud Light, Polymarket, Monster Energy, Starlink, EasyPost and Stake.

· Paramount Skydance, the media company owned by Larry and David Ellison, who are friendly with Trump, live-streamed the event (behind a paywall). A few days earlier, Trump’s Justice Department approved Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, thereby bringing CBS, CNN, Paramount+, HBO Max, and a vast film and television studio under David Ellison’s control.

In a post-fight interview, a UFC winner yelled, “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right America?”

How Far We Have Fallen

Worse than the event itself and Trump’s profiteering is the fact that it happened on White House grounds. While construction was underway, Marine One – the Presidential helicopter – could not land on the South Lawn, its usual location. Fighters used the Executive Office Building and rooms in the White House as locker rooms. If not sacrilegious, it was something close.

President Thomas Jefferson first opened the White House lawn in 1801 when he invited the U.S. Marine Corps Band to perform. Since then, it has been the scene of children’s Easter Egg Rolls (begun by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878), a tennis court (President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902), a performing arts venue (President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965); Willie Nelson’s performance (President Jimmy Carter in 1980), the Beach Boys’ South Lawn Beach Party (President Ronald Reagan in 1983), youth T-ball games (President George H.W. Bush in 2001), and a collaborative arts festival (President Barack Obama in 2016).

The good news is that a recent Reuters poll revealed that only 16 percent of Americans – including one-third of Republicans – said that holding UFC events on the White House lawn was appropriate.

Determined to make his mark, Trump did not care that it would be an ugly blemish on White House history – or another reflection of how far the nation has descended into Trump’s abyss.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

Here’s a link to my June 6 interview with Ian Masters on Background Briefing. It’s only 15 minutes long, but it covers a wide range of Trump scandals:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on June 5, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Between March 2023 and December 2024, Todd Blanche earned millions of dollars as Trump’s personal defense lawyer in the Stormy Daniel hush-money case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the election interference case. As Acting Attorney General of the United States, he’s wading through another Trump mess.

And he’s drowning.

The Fund is Dead; Long Live the Fund

On May 18, Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department created an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to settle President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Even Senate Republicans rebelled against the prospect of using $1.776 billion in taxpayer money as Trump’s slush fund to pay January 6 insurrectionists.

To quell the uprising that was threatening Trump’s legislative agenda, Blanche met with Republicans on Capitol Hill. He made things worse as the weeklong Memorial Day break began.

Faced with mounting pressure – from the public, congressional Republicans, and two judges who were questioning the Fund’s legality – Blanche told a House committee on June 2 that the Fund was not moving forward.

Some senators found comfort in Blanche’s assurances. But the same day, Trump was asked by the New York Post in a podcast interview whether he had dropped the Fund.

Trump said: “No, a court ruled against” it.

Asked again about the Fund on June 3, Trump answered, “I love it. I think it’s so important.”

But the controversy over the Fund’s status is diverting attention from an issue that is much more important to Trump – and a much bigger problem for Blanche: his signature on a document releasing Trump’s potential tax liabilities.

A Phony Lawsuit Leads to a Collusive Settlement

January 29, 2026: Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS seeking $10 billion. He claimed that a former IRS contractor had illegally obtained access to and disclosed Trump’s tax returns to media outlets.

In the past, the IRS mounted aggressive defenses to similar claims. Following normal procedure, IRS attorneys prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining the flaws in Trump’s lawsuit and recommending a motion to dismiss it. But the Justice Department didn’t even enter an appearance in the case, much less seek dismissal.

Presiding U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams was concerned that there was no “actual adversity” between the parties because Trump was on both sides of the lawsuit: the President (plaintiff) controlled the IRS (defendant). She ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address the obvious conflict of interest by May 20.

May 18: With the court deadline approaching and Blanche’s DOJ struggling internally over a response to Judge Williams’ order, Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Believing that she had no choice, Judge Williams entered an order dismissing the case. The court observed that “the Notice [of dismissal] does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement,” and therefore “there is no settlement of record.”

But unbeknownst to Judge Williams, there was a settlement agreement – also dated May 18. In exchange for dismissing his frivolous case, Trump’s Justice Department would create a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

May 19: Another element of the settlement agreement emerged. It gained less attention but was far more important to Trump. Without fanfare, the Justice Department revealed an Addendum that contained an extraordinary release in favor of Trump and “related or affiliated individuals or parties…” from any matters “currently pending or that could be pending . . . “ before the IRS or other federal government agencies or departments.

The IRS has been a recurring thorn in Trump’s side. In 2022, two of his organizations were found guilty of tax fraud and falsifying business records. The New York Times estimated that the Addendum’s release covered audits that could have cost Trump more than $100 million on just one of his properties.

When asked who came up with the terms for the settlement, Blanche denied that he had a role: “The president has outside counsel, and their counsel, the Department of Justice, not me.”

Except Blanche – and only Blanche – signed the Addendum sealing the deal.

May 29: Judge Williams reacted to a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges urging her to reopen Trump’s previously dismissed case. The court concluded that it had been presented with “grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.” She cited allegations that the IRS did not “‘even try[] to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims’ despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims in other litigation” and that “Plaintiffs’ claims were ‘clearly untimely’ and therefore untenable.”

Judge Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address allegations that they had: 1) filed a collusive suit; 2) premised the earlier dismissal notice on deception; and 3) made the court a victim of fraud.

Footnote two of the court’s order focused on Blanche:

“This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are ‘specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised.’ The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche].” (Emphasis supplied)

Blanche’s Problems Grow

Apart from Blanche’s conflict of interest problem, under DOJ policy dating to 1934, the Attorney General doesn’t even have the legal authority to stop civil tax audits. And after the revelations of President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, it has been “unlawful for the President and any employee of the Executive Office of the President, among other officials, to directly or indirectly request that the IRS terminate any ongoing audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.” (Emphasis in original)

If Judge Williams concludes that Trump’s lawyers and/or Justice Department attorneys deceived her in connection with the original dismissal of the case, even voiding the settlement in its entirety won’t end the matter. The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.

The Addendum gives Trump a stunning victory. And Todd Blanche – who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney – now has stunning legal problems of his own.

It’s a classic Trump outcome: Trump wins; his loyalist loses.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on May 17, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the conservative majority’s opinions in two of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in recent years: 1) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — overruling Roe v. Wade; and 2) Louisiana v. Callais — neutering the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In both cases, Alito recited and relied on asserted “facts” that did not exist.

Alito Rewrote History to Ban Abortion

Ohio State University Prof. Treva Lindsey observed, ”From the nation’s founding through the early 1800s, pre-quickening abortions – that is, abortions before a pregnant person feels fetal movement – were fairly common and even advertised.“

But Alito claimed incorrectly in Dobbs that “no common-law case or authority... remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy” and, in the United States specifically, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan called Alito “embarrassingly” wrong. There was no such “unbroken tradition” and historical evidence undermined his claim. But the conservative majority got its desired outcome.

Roberts Began the Assault on the Voting Rights Act

In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority began undermining the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case. Prior to that decision, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to obtain federal approval before making changes to election rules – a process known as preclearance. The state or locality had to prove that any changes would not disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities.

Roberts argued that the elections of 2008 and 2012 – when there was no difference in voter participation rates between Black and white voters (i.e., no “turnout gap”) – meant that the Voting Rights Act had done its job and preclearance could be suspended.

Even at the time, Roberts’ reasoning was suspect. The elections of 2008 and 2012 were anomalies — not the end of the turnout gap — because Barack Obama’s candidacy had driven up Black turnout.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted another flaw in Roberts’ logic: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Justice Ginsburg was correct, and now democracy is getting wet. A 2024 study concluded:

“The formerly covered states [subject to preclearance] have large nonwhite populations and large turnout gaps, leading to some of the largest statewide turnout distortions in the nation. Put differently, a decade after Shelby County, the turnout gap continues to have a disproportionate impact in precisely the parts of the country that were once covered due to their histories of racially discriminatory voting practices.”

Stated simply, “[S]ince 2013, the racial turnout gap around the nation has exploded.”

Alito Finished the Job

Justice Alito ignored the exploding turnout gap in striking the fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act on April 29, 2026. For decades previously, the Court had ruled repeatedly that a state could not undermine minority voters’ power to choose their desired candidates by drawing legislative districts that dispersed such voters across majority-white districts. Instead, states had to create “majority-minority” districts, thereby assuring minority representation in statehouses and Congress.

In its amicus brief to the Court in the Callais case, the Justice Department ignored the trend after 2013 and argued that majority-minority districts were no longer necessary because “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout had largely disappeared, with minorities registering and voting at levels that sometimes surpassed the majority. Shelby County, 570 U.S. at 547-548.” To emphasize the point, the DOJ observed, “Since 2004, black voters have turned out at higher rates than white voters in two of five presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.”

Alito parroted the DOJ’s sophistry: “Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.”

As election experts have observed, Alito’s claim that Black and white turnout reached parity in two of the five most recent Presidential elections “represents egregious cherry-picking. [H]e was not referring to recent elections, but to those in 2008 and 2012 — the years that Barack Obama ran for president. In the three most recent presidential elections, the trend shows exactly the opposite. The indisputable fact is the racial turnout gap is widening, and the Roberts Court is partially responsible [because of its Shelby County decision].”

Armed with the Callais decision, Republicans are now racing to eliminate majority-Black districts throughout the country.

Rewrite history; distort reality; make up facts; overturn longstanding precedent. For Justice Alito – with an occasional assist from Chief Justice Roberts – it’s all in a day’s work.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

Here’s a link to my May 6 interview on Radio Parallax. It’s the first segment of Show 1055.

https://radioparallax.com/single-shows/5933/

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on May 3, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

During President Donald Trump’s first term, he bemoaned the failure of his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to protect him from the Justice Department’s investigation of Russia’s efforts to elect Trump in 2016.

“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump erupted, referring to his notorious former fixer who had also been Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hatchet-man during the 1950s Senate hearings into communist activity. Trump later fired Sessions.

For a time, Attorney General William Barr was the answer. But the two men parted ways after Barr told him repeatedly that no evidence supported Trump’s obsessive claims that voter fraud had cost him the 2020 election.

In Trump’s second term, it appeared that Pam Bondi fit the bill. She tried valiantly to meet Trump’s every legal need. She transformed the Justice Department into Trump’s personal tool, prosecuted Trump’s perceived enemies, and tried to protect Trump from the fallout over the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking of minors.

But she bungled the Epstein files. She tried but failed to prosecute two key targets on Trump’s vengeance list: New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. She savaged her own reputation but could not save her job.

Bondi’s deputy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is now auditioning to remove the “Acting” from his title. He hopes to succeed where his predecessors have failed – to become Trump’s enduring Roy Cohn.

From Democrat to Trump Enabler

Blanche began his legal career in 1999 as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Working days and attending Brooklyn Law School at night, he graduated in 2003. After a stint as an associate in the Davis Polk firm and two federal court clerkships, he returned in 2006 to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as a prosecutor and eventually became co-chief of the violent crimes division.

In 2014, Blanche joined the WilmerHale firm as a partner before moving to another big New York firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. In 2019, he represented Paul Manafort on state mortgage fraud charges similar to federal crimes for which Manafort had already been convicted in 2018. (Trump pardoned Manafort in December 2020). Blanche got the state law claims dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.

But in April 2023, Cadwalader balked when Blanche, then a registered Democrat, sought to represent Trump in the hush-money case involving payments to Stormy Daniels. So Blanche left Cadwalader and started his own firm. The jury eventually convicted Trump, but for Blanche it began a profitable relationship that generated over $3 million from Trump’s Save America PAC in the new firm’s first year alone.

Blanche went on to represent Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and in the election obstruction case involving Trump’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election. In 2024, Blanche switched his registration from Democrat to Republican.

Trump’s Latest Roy Cohn

Blanche is no longer Trump’s personal attorney, but you wouldn’t know it from his conduct in office.

Although he was the number two official in the Justice Department, in July 2025 he tried to quiet the MAGA backlash over Trump’s breach of an election pledge to release the Justice Department’s Epstein files. Blanche went to Florida where Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell was in prison and interviewed her personally. Openly seeking a pardon, Maxwell said that she had never seen Trump do anything inappropriate.

Mission accomplished.

Shortly thereafter, Maxwell was transferred to a “club fed-type” prison camp – even though her conviction had rendered her ineligible for such placement under Bureau of Prisons policy. Blanche said that threats against her were the reason for the transfer.

As acting attorney general, Blanche has now picked up where Bondi had failed to put Comey behind bars. At an April 28, 2026 press conference, he announced Comey’s indictment alleging that in posting an Instagram photo of sea shells that formed “86 47” on a North Carolina beach, Comey “knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.”

A sea-shell death threat via Instagram.

“So, I think it’s fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime,” Blanche said indignantly as he explained that the charges against Comey came with a 10-year potential prison sentence. “Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.”

Blanche continued, “[W]hile this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.”

Really? How about these?

· “Hang Mike Pence” – Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists, some of whom may have been responsible for the sign carrying that message and the gallows accompanying it. The statute of limitations on such “threats” is five years. Where was that indictment?

· “86 46” – Anti-Biden Trump social media personality Jack Posobiec posted this in January 2022. It also appeared on T-Shirts, caps, and Republican fundraising messages.

· Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) posted this in February 2024: “We’ve now 86’d: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell. Better days are ahead for the Republican Party.”

Wasting Taxpayer Money

Prosecutors face a daunting task proving Comey’s subjective intent to harm Trump. Even longtime Trump apologist Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, acknowledged that the indictment “is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. If it did, it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

When asked at his press conference how he would prove intent, Blanche said “with witnesses, with documents, and with the defendant himself,” adding: “It’s very premature for me to do that today.”

That non-answer won’t suffice when Comey’s lawyers provide evidence that this is just another vindictive prosecution on Trump’s behalf at taxpayer expense.

Someday Blanche’s progeny may ask him why – as the chief law enforcement officer in the United States – he helped a rogue president run roughshod over the rule of law.

He probably won’t tell them about Roy Cohn.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

Here are links to my recent interview on Dawn to Dusk. Unlike my typical articles, it offers a glimpse into my personal life, including the process leading to my first book, Crossing Hoffa: A Teamster’s Story - which was a Chicago Tribune “Best Book of the Year.”

YouTube: “From Leading Litigator to Navigating a Smooth Transition: A Conversation with Steve Harper”

Spotify:

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/from-leading-litigator-to-navigating-a-smooth/id1843226459?i=1000763714631

[This article first appeared in Common Dreams on April 21, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

When he declared war on Iran in violation of international law and the U.S. Constitution, President Donald Trump announced several objectives. He claims to have won the war, but Iran is emerging as the long-term victor.

Let’s count the ways.

“Regime Change”

No one doubted the capacity of the U.S. armed forces to decimate Iran’s far inferior military force. But to what end?

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Trump that launching the attack would prompt a popular uprising that would lead to the overthrow of Iran’s theocracy. Listening to Netanyahu’s assertion, CIA Director John Ratcliffe called it “farcical.” Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio translated that word into language Trump would understand, “In other words, it’s bullshit.”

Trump chose to believe Netanyahu. Announcing the U.S.-Israeli assault, Trump told Iranians that this was their opportunity to reclaim their country. To win the war on Trump’s terms, the Iranian theocracy needed only to survive.

The attack killed the Supreme Leader of Iran and top members of the government. But immediately, the serpent grew another head - the Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who had lost his wife and teenage son in the bombing. The new leader is known for deep, long-standing ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) security establishment. His appointment signaled a transition to a more heavily militarized, hardline, and anti-Western regime.

Trump calls this “regime change.” By his definition, Admiral Karl Dönitz succeeding Adolf Hitler as head of the German state near the end of World War II constituted regime change too.

The Iran theocracy survived in an even more militant form.

Score: Iran 1, Trump 0

“Contain Iran”

Trump boasted that the war would restrain Iran’s ability to project power:

“We are systematically dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders,” he said.

Trump then described the destruction of Iran’s navy, air force, missile facilities, and defense industrial base. Those were tactical successes, but the war itself has been a strategic failure.

Iran’s response included attacks on neighboring countries. Even more troubling, it discovered and deployed a powerful new weapon: blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Notwithstanding its decimated navy, Iran now has a chokehold on the global economy.

Netanyahu had assured Trump that the regime would be so weakened from the U.S-Israeli assault that it would be unable to block the waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flowed. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait and the risks of Iran blocking it. But Trump dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before that could happen.

With the price of oil skyrocketing, Trump has created a new problem for the entire world and powerful leverage for Iran.

Score: Iran 2, Trump 0

“No Nuclear Weapons”

In his June 2025 attack on Iran, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” its nuclear facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went farther, saying that not only were the facilities obliterated, but so too were Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Subsequently, Trump took repeated victory laps over the mission:

• “It knocked out their entire potential nuclear capacity.” (July 16)

• “It’s been obliterated.” (July 31)

• “We obliterated … the future nuclear capability of Iran.” (August 18)

• “But I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes, by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.” (September 20)

• “Well, they don’t have a nuclear program. It was obliterated.” (October 13)

• “… completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability.” (November 11)

• “It was called Iran and its nuclear capability, and we obliterated that very quickly and strongly and powerfully.” (November 19)

• “We obliterated their nuclear capability.” (December 11)

• “We knocked out the Iran nuclear threat, and it was obliterated.” (January 8)

• “… obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability.” (January 20)

• “… achieving total obliteration of the Iran nuclear potential capability — totally obliterated.” (February 13)

In defending the launch of the war on February 28, 2026, Trump acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear program had not been obliterated after all. Rather, the country was now “right at the doorstep” of having a nuclear bomb. Trump has no strategy for solving that problem either.

Trump’s tactics – bombing – won’t work. Knowledgeable experts believe that a key Iranian nuclear facility is Pickaxe Mountain, where some of its uranium may be stored. That facility is so far below the ground that even America’s 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs can’t reach its inner chamber.

Trump talks about “going in” and taking the nuclear material out. But a ground operation to retrieve the material and/or destroy the facility would entail tremendous risk to those attempting it while providing, at best, an uncertain outcome.

The threat of a nuclear Iran remains.

Score: Iran 3, Trump 0

False Declarations of Victory That Backfire

Trump’s bluster isn’t working with Iranian leaders. His threats to commit war crimes dominate news cycles, but they merely reveal to Iran Trump’s desperation to extricate himself from the mess he created. As a negotiating strategy, it’s counterproductive.

Trump’s persistent boasts about tactical victories against Iran’s military ignore the fundamental strategic fact that Trump has lost the Iran war. If a deal emerges from discussions between Iran’s experienced negotiators and Trump’s collection of amateurs, America and the world will pay a big price for a long time.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on April 16, 2026.]

J. D. VANCE’S AMBITION IS DESTROYING HIM

by Steven J. Harper

As Prime Minister of Hungary for 16 years, Viktor Orbán became a beacon for the right and one of President Donald Trump’s favorite authoritarian role models. A self-described populist, Orbán’s conquest of democracy’s three pillars – the media, institutions of higher education, and the justice system – became Trump’s template.

Another Orbán characteristic attracted Trump: His regime consistently ranked #1 as the most corrupt country in the European Union. He abused political power for self-enrichment. He installed friends and family members in positions of influence and power that made him (and them) wealthy. He used his majority in the legislature to enhance his power. A persistent critic of Ukraine, Orbán also enjoyed the support of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sound familiar?

Trump embraced and praised Orbán, which meant that Vance embraced and praised him too.

Vance Surrendered to Ambition

In 2016, Vance had called himself a “Never Trump Guy” and wrote a New York Times op-ed titled, “Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation’s Highest Office.” But he reversed course in 2021 when he ran for the U.S. Senate and sought successfully to gain Trump’s endorsement.

As a junior senator, Vance could have refrained from voicing an opinion about Orbán. But ambition required otherwise. In a February 2024 interview with European Conservative, Vance was well aware of Trump’s views as he lobbied to become the vice-presidential pick on the Republican ticket. He held out Trump’s Hungarian idol as an example to emulate:

“The closest that conservatives have ever gotten to successfully dealing with left-wing domination of universities is Viktor Orbán’s approach in Hungary. I think his way has to be the model for us: not to eliminate universities, but to give them a choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching.”

Of course, Vance – a Yale Law School graduate – knew that Orbán did not offer a “much less biased approach to teaching.” He demanded instruction centered on his view of history and the world.

In the same 2024 interview, Vance previewed what would also become some of Trump’s tactics:

“And whether it’s the incentives that you put into place, funding decisions that are made, and the curricula that are developed, you really can use politics to influence culture. And we should be doing more of that on the American Right.”

In a July 2024 interview on Face the Nation, Vance reaffirmed his praise for Orbán’s approach:

“What I do think is on the university — on the university principle, the idea that taxpayers should have some influence in how their money is spent at these universities. It’s a totally reasonable thing. And I do think that he’s made some smart decisions there that we could learn from in the United States.”

It was only the beginning of Vance’s “awakening.”

Vance Carried Trump’s Message and Now Bears His Baggage

As vice president, Vance used his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025 to attack many of Europe’s democracies by name – but not Hungary. He said that actors from within posed a greater threat than China or Russia: “In Britain, and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

To a stone-faced audience of European leaders, Vance complained about “old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’ who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion…”

In fact, what responsible leaders don’t like is misinformation and disinformation pervading the political landscape. Orbán relied on both, as have Trump and Vance.

And Vance declared that mass immigration was Europe’s most significant problem, noting record levels of foreign-born residents in Germany and increased EU immigration from non-EU countries caused by “conscious decisions” from certain European leaders.

For Trump and Vance, leaders like Orbán were the antidote to the decline of Western civilization. But heading into the April 2026 election in Hungary, Orbán was down by double digits in the polls.

On April 8, Trump dispatched Vance to Budapest where he held a rally for the embattled leader. Vance portrayed Orbán as a hero:

“I’m here because of the moral cooperation between our two countries. Because what the United States and Hungary together represent under Viktor’s leadership and under President Trump’s is the defense of Western civilization… The defense of the idea that we are founded on a certain Christian civilization and Christian values that animate everything from freedom of speech to rule of law to respect for minority rights and protection of the vulnerable.”

Vance continued:

“Will you stand for sovereignty and democracy? Will you stand for Western civilization? Will you stand for freedom, for truth and for the God of our fathers? Then my friends, go to the polls in the weekend, stand with Viktor Orbán because he stands for you and he stands for all these things.”

In fact, Orbán stood for none of those things.

The closest Trump got to the rally was a speakerphone call via Vance’s cellphone through which he said, “I love Hungary and I love that Viktor.”

Vance’s Reckoning Has Only Begun

On April 12, 2026, three days after Vance’s rally for Orbán, a reckoning arrived for all three men – Orbán, Trump, and Vance. In a landslide, Hungarian voters threw Orbán out of office. The populist had become unpopular, and Hungary’s citizens reclaimed their country.

Vance had followed Trump into Orbán’s abyss, and now Trump is taking him on another losing journey. Vance is the highest-ranking Catholic in the Trump administration, and he has joined Trump in attacking the Pope.

Sometime ambition makes a person not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on March 30, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war based on his “gut instinct.” Global financial markets – the North Star that guides Trump – are telling him what his advisers and congressional Republicans won’t: His “gut” blew it badly, and his efforts to appease the markets are making the debacle worse.

He has proceeded in three phases. We’re now at the Trump panic phase.

Phase #1: Trump’s Gut Was Wrong and the Markets Scolded Him

Trump ignored the facts and relied on gut instinct to launch the war without making the case to America’s allies or the public:

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.”

Trump’s baseless opinion contradicted the justification for war that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had provided to Congress a day earlier. Rubio said that Israel was going to attack and that Iran would retaliate by attacking U.S. interests in the region.

Even worse, Trump ignored long-predicted consequences:

· Iran attacked neighboring countries aligned with the United States.

· It closed the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S. and its allies, disrupting one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

· The global price of oil surged from $72 per barrel to more than $100 per barrel.

· Because Iran’s major source of revenue is oil – accounting for 35 percent of its federal budget – Trump funded the enemy’s war chest.

Global financial markets plummeted.

Phase 2: Trump’s First Effort to Calm Markets Helped Putin

Trump’s initial assurance that the war would be over in “four to six weeks” offered the markets only sporadic and temporary relief. So he started down the slippery slope of eliminating longstanding sanctions on Russian oil.

Oil and natural gas are Russia’s most important sources of revenue, accounting for 30% to 50% of the federal budget. Sanctions had forced Russia to charge India $22 per barrel in January, putting Putin’s economy on an unsustainable path. But on March 5, Trump issued a 30-day waiver allowing India’s purchases from Russia.

Trump’s waiver was a boon to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the global price of oil kept rising and the markets kept falling.

Phase 3: Trump Panicked and Made Matters Worse

On March 11, Trump released 172 million barrels from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve – the world’s largest supply source of emergency crude oil. But the oil would not make a dent in the global market, would take 120 days to deliver, and would leave the Strategic Reserve at its lowest level since 1982.

The price of oil kept rising, and the markets kept falling.

On March 13, over the objections of the European Union, Trump removed sanctions on Russian oil that was already at sea. It was another gift to Putin, but the price of oil kept rising and the markets kept falling.

On March 20, Trump lifted sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil “currently stranded at sea.” In addition to providing Iran with $14 billion-dollar windfall, his action contradicted Trump’s contemporaneous claims that he had “won” the war and was considering “winding it down.”

As Brett Erickson, managing principal at a firm that specializes in financial crime and regulatory issues, observed “You don’t unsanction Iranian oil if you’re winding down. This is the action of an administration that has no exit ramp and knows it. The word for that is desperation.”

Meanwhile, the price of oil kept rising, and the markets kept falling.

Trump’s panic became clear on Saturday, March 21, when he threatened to commit a war crime:

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”

By Monday morning, the price of oil was skyrocketing and Asian and European markets were sinking. Shortly before the U.S. stock market opened, Trump panicked again. He withdrew his threat and said that because the U.S. and Iran had held “productive” talks, he was postponing the attack on Iranian’s energy infrastructure for five days.

The price of oil dropped more than 10 percent, and global markets soared. Meanwhile, it appeared that insiders with knowledge of Trump’s planned announcement made hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-announcement bets that crude oil prices would decline.

But then Iran’s foreign ministry denied Trump’s assertion about settlement talks, although through intermediaries the U.S. and Iran had exchanged messages that “appeared to be short of negotiations.”

Within a day, the price of oil resumed its upward climb and the financial markets fell.

Panic begets panic. On March 26, Trump announced a 10-day extension to April 6 of his prior threat to commit a war crime by attacking Iran’s energy facilities. He asserted that settlement negotiations were proceeding while at the same time issuing contradictory, statements about his war plans:

· The Iranians “were begging for a deal,” but “they better get serious” and “talks were going very well.”

· He wanted U.S. allies to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, but didn’t care if they refused.

· “We already won the war,” but Trump was massing more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the region and threatened a ground assault on Iran’s main oil production facility.

· He “may or may not” use the military to secure Iran’s uranium.

Trump’s defenders argue that his contradictory actions are strategic. It’s more likely that panic has him flailing. His gut instinct led him to make a colossal mistake, and he has no idea what to do next.

Worst of all for Trump: The financial markets are finally on to him.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on March 18,2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

President Donald Trump is a victim of his own success. After a quick strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities last June and the capture of Venezuela’s corrupt president in January, the U.S. military made war look easy and Trump feel omnipotent.

Three weeks into a more daunting excursion into Iran, Trump is now a desperate leader.

Trump’s Latest Grudge Match

With Trump, everything is personal. A growing body of evidence suggests that a principal objective in attacking Iran was the assassination of the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For example:

· When the C.I.A. learned that the Ayatollah and top Iranian officials would be meeting in a militarily accessible location, a previously planned nighttime strike was moved up to the middle of the day.

· On Sunday night, March 1, shortly after reports that the U.S.-Israeli attack had killed the Ayatollah, Trump said, “I got him before he got me.” He was referring to an alleged plot to kill Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign as retribution for the January 2020 U.S. strike that killed Iran’s military leader Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,

· The desire to downplay Trump’s desire for vengeance explains why he and his minions have offered more noble – and contradictory – justifications for the war, including:

· To help the Iranian people secure their freedom (Trump);

· To attack Iran because Israel was going to do it and that would result in Iran’s attack on U.S. assets in the Middle East (Secretary of State Marco Rubio);

· To attack Iran first, not because Israel was going to do it anyway, but because Trump had a gut feeling that Iran was going to attack the U.S. (Trump). But Pentagon officials informed Congress that no intelligence supported Trump’s opinion;

· To eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability (although Trump claimed to have done that with the June attack).

Mission Accomplished?

Whatever his motivations, deploying the might of the military force was the beginning and the end of Trump’s thinking. He and his advisors are now flailing in the aftermath.

Iran has divided its global adversaries by holding the world’s economy hostage. Closing the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S. and its allies sent world markets reeling as the price of oil increased by 40 percent and the price of gasoline in the U.S. rose by almost $1.00 per gallon. Trump is trying to sell the line that such costs in the short run will pay off in the long run, but few are buying it.

Trump’s Desperate Ploys

The absence of any U.S. strategy becomes clearer by the day. Trump has thrown everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. So far, nothing has.

· He floated a $20 billion insurance guarantee for ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz – but not everyone lives in Trump’s world in which everything has a price.

· He suggested using U.S. military escorts for the tankers but offered no timeline; the risks to U.S. military personnel and equipment would be enormous.

· He tried shaming oil tanker crews to “show some guts” and continue sailing through the Strait – even as tankers burst into flames when trying to do so. Maybe Trump should go first.

· He pleaded with world leaders to join his “team” to reopen the Strait for shipping, saying, “Some are very enthusiastic about it, and some aren’t. Some are countries that we’ve helped for many, many years. We’ve protected them from horrible outside sources, and they weren’t that enthusiastic. And the level of enthusiasm matters to me.”

· He ridiculed allies refusing his requests to join a war that he started without consulting them: “We have some countries where we have 45,000 soldiers, great soldiers, protecting them from harm’s way, and we have done a great job. And when we want to know, ‘Do you have any mine sweepers?’ ‘Well, would rather not get involved, sir.’”

· He made threats that are not-so-veiled: “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”

Attacking the Messenger

In a futile effort at damage control, Trump accused media outlets of dispensing “fake news” about the growing Iran debacle. They “should be brought up on charges of TREASON,” he posted. In the same tirade, he said that he was “thrilled to see Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations.”

Hearing and heeding his master’s voice, Carr shared another Trump post criticizing news coverage of the Iran war and issued this hollow threat: “Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up... Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s lengthy criticism of Iran war coverage included a special message for CNN: “The sooner David Ellison [the son of billionaire Trump supporter Larry Ellison] takes over that network, the better.”

This much is certain: Trump will never take responsibility for any failure of his policies, including the Iran war. When his deportation operation became a scandal and one of his worst political liabilities, Kristi Noem became a casualty. If Trump’s Iran war continues to go badly, he’ll need another scapegoat. Hegseth has been living on borrowed time since the Signalgate scandal. He should have been fired long ago.

But make no mistake. Hegseth is just Trump’s useful idiot. This is and always has been Trump’s war. It began as his personal war of retribution, ignored predictable consequences for the world, and never had an endgame strategy.

And now it has gone terribly wrong.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This post first appeared at Common Dreams on March 9, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Minimally competent leaders would have considered at least five obvious questions before launching the nation into war. President Donald Trump considered none of them.

#1: What’s the Objective?

It’s not surprising that more than half of all Americans oppose Trump’s War. From the outset, his administration has offered numerous and contradictory justifications for it.

February 28:

· Trump cited 47 years of grievances, a desire to destroy Iran’s missiles, and a message that the Iranian people should “seize the moment” because now was their chance to “be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country.”

· But he also said that the attack was a campaign to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat,” although Trump had boasted in June that the United States had already accomplished that goal.

· The same day, Trump told the Washington Post, “All I want is freedom for the people.”

· U.N. Ambassador Mike Walz claimed to the United Nations Security Council that the U.S. was invoking the right of self-defense in response to Iran’s imminent threat.

· But the next day, Pentagon officials told congressional staff members that no intelligence supported the notion that Iran was planning to attack the U.S. first.

March 2:

· Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the press that the objective was retaliation for decades of Iranian behavior, destruction of their missiles, and providing an opportunity for Iranians to “take advantage of this incredible opportunity.”

· But only hours later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a new justification for the war: Israel was going to attack Iran and, if that happened, Iran would then attack U.S. interests in the region. He made it sound as if Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had maneuvered Trump into a corner.

· The next day, Trump contradicted Rubio, saying, “It was my opinion that they [Iran] were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn’t do it.” Rebutting any impression that Netanyahu had manipulated him, Trump added, “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

· Rubio complained that his earlier remarks had been taken out of context and the operation “had to happen anyway.”

March 6:

· Trump posted on social media that only “unconditional surrender” would end the war.

#2: How Long Will It Last?

· March 1: Trump told The New York Times that the operation could take “four to five weeks.” He didn’t mention the Pentagon’s concerns that the war could further deplete reserves that military strategists have said are critical for scenarios such as a conflict over Taiwan or Russian incursions into Europe.

· March 2: Trump said that the war could go on longer than four to five weeks.

· March 4: Hegseth said that the Iran war is “far from over” and has “only just begun.”

· March 6: Trump told the New York Post that he hadn’t ruled out putting “boots on the ground, if necessary.”

#3: Who Will Lead Iran After U.S. Strikes Kill Its Supreme Leader?

· March 1: Trump told The New York Times that he had “three very good choices” for who could lead Iran.

· March 3: Trump admitted, “Most of the people we had in mind are dead… Now we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports. So I guess you have a third wave coming. Pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.” Asked about the worst-case scenario for the war, Trump said, “I guess the worst case would be we do this and somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person.”

· March 5: Trump told Axios, “I have to be involved in the appointment [of Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s successor], like with Delcy in Venezuela” – referring to Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who remained in charge of President Nicolás Maduro’s corrupt and repressive regime after the U.S. abducted him. Trump said that Khamenei’s son – rumored to be a leading candidate as successor – is “unacceptable to me” and “a light weight.”

· The same day, he told NBC News, “We have some people who I think would do a good job.”

· March 7: The Washington Post reported that a classified National Intelligence Committee study issued prior to the war found that even if the U.S. launched a large-scale assault on Iran, it likely would not oust the Islamic republic’s entrenched military and clerical establishment.

· March 9: Iran chose Khamenei’s son, a cleric expected to continue his father’s hardline policies, as the country’s Supreme Leader.

#4: How Would a U.S-Iran War Affect the Mideast?

· Before U.S. bombs began to fall, thousands of American citizens were in the war zone. But ahead of the strikes, the State Department didn’t issue official alerts advising Americans that the risk of travel in the region had increased.

Yael Lempert, who helped organize the evacuation of Americans in Libya in 2011 observed, “It is stunning there were no orders for authorized departure for nonessential U.S. government employees and family members in almost all the affected diplomatic missions in the region — nor public recommendations to American citizens to depart — until days into the war.”

· After attacks and counterattacks closed airspace and airports throughout the region, on Wednesday, May 4 – four days into the war – the State Department finally began evacuations by charter flight. The following day, The New York Times reported:

“Until midweek, the State Department had mainly provided stranded travelers with basic information about security conditions and commercial travel options via a telephone hotline and text messages. Before Wednesday, desperate people calling the hotline got an automated message that said the U.S. government could not help get them out of the region.”

#5: Could the War Lead to Humanitarian, Economic, or Geopolitical Crises?

· Only a week into the war, the U.N. humanitarian chief warned, “This is a moment of “grave, grave peril.”

· Iran is a country of 90 million people. U.S.-Israel bombing has already displaced more than 100,000 of them.

· Israel’s companion attack on Lebanon has displaced more than 300,000 residents.

· More than a dozen Mideast countries are now embroiled in Trump’s war, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

· The ripple effects span the globe as oil prices spike and Iran disrupts tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz – though which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows. During his state of the union message, Trump boasted that the price of gasoline was down to $2,00/gallon in some states. Last week, the national average price in the U.S. was $3.41/gallon.

· Ominously, on March 6 the Washington Post reported that Russia is providing intelligence assistance to the Iranian military attacking U.S. targets. But Hegseth is “not concerned about that.”

Asked to rate his Iran war performance on a scale of one to 10, Trump gave himself a “15.”

Introspection rarely accompanies incompetence.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on February 26, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Incompetence will be President Donald Trump’s undoing. The only question is whether he and his minions will undo the nation first. Today’s subject is Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Bondi’s Blunders and Bluster

In her first year, Bondi has established an unprecedented record of destruction in the service of Trump. Servitude is more apt. Here’s a small sample:

· Thousands of experienced attorneys have left the Justice Department. Bondi fired those she deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump. Others resigned in protest over her directives, such as investigating the partner of Renee Nicole Good – a U.S. citizen whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minnesota killed – rather than scrutinizing the actions of her ICE killers.

· Bondi has decimated the department’s civil rights division, which historically investigated whether federal officers had used excessive force in killings like Good’s. As division head Harmeet Dhillon turned its mission upside down, more than 70 percent of its attorneys left. University of Chicago Law School Professor Craig Futterman explained that the Trump administration “is using a division that has a history of protecting the most vulnerable among us to wage an all-out assault on the civil rights of vulnerable people, including Black people, brown people, women, LGBTQIA folk.”

· Across the country, judges are chastising federal prosecutors for defying court orders and are wondering if the problem is incompetence, work overload, or the executive branch’s systematic attack on the judiciary. At least 35 times since August, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders in immigration cases: “Antiseptic judicial rhetoric cannot do justice to what is happening,” Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in West Virginia wrote, calling the warrantless arrest and imprisonment of thousands across the country “an assault on the constitutional order.”

· On Capitol Hill, Bondi refused to answer pointed questions and, instead, descended into bipartisan insults of the elected representatives who dared to challenge her. When ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a constitutional law professor, told her not to filibuster through his limited time for questioning, she snapped, “You don’t tell me anything, you washed up loser lawyer.” She called Republican Thomas Massie (R-KY) a “failed politician” who had “Trump derangement syndrome.”

· Bipartisan outrage grows over Bondi’s incompetent and incomplete production of the Justice Department’s infamous Jeffrey Epstein files. It took Rep. Massie and a handful of fellow Republicans in the House to overcome the opposition of Trump and his congressional allies in forcing legislation requiring full disclosure by December 19, 2025. That deadline came and went before Bondi’s department finally produced files that included victims’ identities. The public learned on February 24th that the Justice Department’s belated 3.5 million-page document dump excluded files relating to allegations that Trump sexually abused a minor, according to an NPR analysis and the New York Times.

Bondi’s Backstory

Understanding Bondi’s loyalty to Trump over her oath to uphold the Constitution requires a timeline:

· In November 2010, Bondi was elected Florida’s attorney general. From February 2008 to May 2011, her Office of Attorney General (OAG) received at least 22 complaints regarding Trump University, the Trump Institute, and related entities.

· In August 2013, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Trump, Trump Entrepreneur Institute a/k/a Trump University, and the former president of Trump University for “engaging in persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct.” The Florida OAG said it was looking at the allegations.

· In September 2013, the Donald J. Trump Foundation made a $25,000 contribution to “And Justice for All,” a political group backing Bondi’s reelection. The donation, illegal for a 501(c)(3) private foundation, was personally solicited by Bondi from Trump.

· In October 2013, the OAG said it would not act on the complaints against Trump University or join the lawsuit filed by New York’s attorney general.

· In March 2016, Bondi became the first big-name Republican in the state to endorse Trump in the Florida presidential primary. A week later, CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) filed a complaint against the Trump Foundation. Trump representatives admitted to the earlier illegal donation, blaming a series of clerical errors.

· In June 2016, Bondi’s spokesperson told the Associated Press that the attorney general was unaware of the 20+ complaints against Trump entities when she solicited the donation in 2013.

· In September 2016, the Washington Post discovered that Trump had paid a $2,500 IRS penalty for the illegal donation to Bondi.

· In December 2016, Trump announced that he was shutting down his Foundation in response to the growing scandal, which now included claims of self-dealing.

· In March 2017, an attorney hired by the Florida Commission on Ethics found, “[I]t may raise suspicions that within a month after the New York Attorney General announced that New York would be filing a lawsuit against Trump University, Donald Trump contributed a total of $25,500.00 to [Bondi] or her organizations. However, in this case, there is no evidence that [she] was involved with the investigation or decisions regarding Trump University.”

· During Trump’s first impeachment trial in January 2020, Bondi was one of his defense lawyers.

Bondi’s Blind Obedience

Announcing Bondi as his choice for U.S. attorney general to replace failed nominee Matt Gaetz, Trump said, “For too long, the partisan Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans — Not anymore. Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime and Making America Safe Again.”

To Bondi, that mission means slavish devotion to Trump and weaponizing the Justice Department against his enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey, N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, six Democratic lawmakers who recorded a message to troops about not following illegal orders, and on and on and on. In some cases, the only check on her abuse of power has been the refusal of grand juries – consisting of ordinary citizens – to issue indictments that she had sought against Trump’s targets.

Bondi has undermined her integrity, defined her legacy, and destroyed the nation’s Justice Department. As with many members of Trump’s cabinet, her incompetence is catching up with her, but it’s taking a toll on all of us.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on February 19, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Not until President Donald Trump is long gone will Americans feel the full impact of his most destructive policies and his administration’s incompetence. Today’s topic: Measles.

“For children, the risks of measles are especially grave. Complications, which occur in one in five people who have the disease, can include pneumonia, blindness, permanent neurologic injury, and death. These outcomes are well-documented, particularly among young children and those with delayed access to medical care.” (Theresa Cheng, MD, JD, assistant clinical professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at UCSF-Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and a lawyer.)

Measles is preventable, but community immunity requires a 92-94 percent vaccination rate. Since the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963, the incidence of the disease has decreased by over 99 percent, thanks to the combination of immunity through prior exposure and vaccination rates above the required threshold.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reversing that remarkable public health achievement.

Three recent stories about measles have implications that are far more consequential for the fate of humanity than Trump’s racist memes or his destabilizing antics on the world stage.

Story #1: Measles Outbreak in South Carolina

Between 1991 and 2024, South Carolina had a total of only eight measles cases – six of which occurred within a single household in 2018.

· In October 2025, the state reported the first three cases in the current outbreak.

· As of February 17, South Carolina had 962 confirmed measles cases; 253 involve children under five, 615 are ages five to 17, 85 are adults, and nine ages are unknown.

· Since the outbreak, 20 individuals have been hospitalized with complications related to the disease.

· 95 percent of the infected individuals were not vaccinated.

The area of the state experiencing the greatest number of cases (95 percent of them) also led the state in the decline in vaccination rate: Spartanburg County’s rate dropped from 93.9% in 2021-2022 to 88.9 percent the current school year – well below the critical threshold required for community immunity.

Story #2: Anti-Vaxxers Determine America’s Public Health Policy

Kennedy has gutted the Department of Health and Human Services. He has replaced scientific and medical experts with hacks who adhere here to his willful ignorance.

One of those appointees is the leader of the federal panel that recommends vaccines for Americans, Dr. Kirk Milhorn, chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. On January 22, Milhorn said that vaccines protecting children from polio and measles, and perhaps all diseases, should be optional.

“What we are doing is returning individual autonomy to the first order — not public health but individual autonomy to the first order.”

What he and his colleagues are actually doing is killing us. Kennedy has already dropped six vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule.

Story #3: States Are the Last Line of Defense

Only individual states, which have ultimate responsibility for vaccine schedules, have saved the country from the full destructive force of Kennedy’s anti-science, anti-vaxxer crusade. But his ascension as head of the nation’s federal public health policy has empowered his allies to target state childhood vaccination mandates.

The Medical Freedom Act Coalition includes the Children’s Health Defense – a non-profit group that Kennedy co-founded. It is pushing legislation that would end state laws that codify vaccination schedules. Such legislation is pending in several states.

Asked about the effort, Kennedy said he was not involved, but added, “I believe in freedom of choice.”

Earlier this month, Chris Anders, a Republican state lawmaker in West Virginia, introduced a bill that would eliminate his state’s school vaccination mandates, including the requirement that county health departments offer free shots to low-income children.

“If people decide not to be vaccinated, that is their choice,” he argued. “Just like if they decide not to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet or anything else. If they decide that, they suffer the consequences.”

Kennedy, Milhorn, Anders and their like-minded anti-vaxxers march under the “freedom of choice” banner. It’s a red herring that omits a crucial element of the equation: Someone who does not get vaccinated puts others – mostly children who have no voice in the critical decision to protect or jeopardize their health – at serious risk of injury or death.

For a long time to come, everyone else’s kids will bear those consequences.

Epilogue: Ripple Effects

The measles vaccine is the small tip of an enormous public health iceberg. Kennedy and his anti-vaxxers in charge of public health have “sent a chill through the entire [vaccine] industry,” according to Dr. John Coller of Johns Hopkins University, a member of the executive committee of the Alliance for mRNA Medicines.

As Kennedy creates unwarranted fears about the safety and efficacy of life-saving vaccines, some Americans will continue to believe him and vaccine sales will suffer. As he cuts research funding for new vaccine development, America will be unprepared for the next pandemic. As the impact of his attack on science intensifies, the overall public health costs will be staggering.

Future historians will scratch their heads in disbelief at what we are doing to ourselves and our children.

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on February 10, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Democrats want President Donald Trump to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement by following the rules that govern every other law enforcement agency in the country. But a particular sticking point has become the demand that ICE and Border Patrol officers stop wearing masks during enforcement operations.

It should be a “no-brainer.” But Republicans say it’s a “non-starter.”

In fact, Republicans are so wedded to their objection that they’re willing to shut down other critical Department of Homeland Security agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), US Coast Guard (USCG), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

Ironically, blocking DHS’s appropriation would have a minimal impact on ICE because Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” provided ICE with $85 billion – making it the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency and more than twice that of the Justice Department, which includes the FBI.

The GOP’s Specious Argument

Republicans claim that unmasking ICE would endanger the officers because protesters might learn their identities, which would threaten the officers’ safety. It’s nonsense.

Local police officers don’t wear masks.

County sheriffs don’t wear masks.

State troopers don’t wear masks.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents don’t wear masks.

FBI agents don’t wear masks.

When any of these officers and agents engage in law enforcement activities, the individuals they stop can demand identification and the officers must provide it. Confirming the officers’ identities assures that they are not imposters. And it assures a path to their potential accountability.

The GOP’s Real Reasons

History is filled with notorious examples of sinister mask wearers: terrorists who execute hostages, robbers, thieves, kidnappers, home invaders, Ku Klux Klansmen, Darth Vader and the Galactic Empire’s stormtroopers.

Add ICE and the Border Patrol to that roster of villains.

With masks, identification becomes more difficult, resulting in an obstacle to accountability. At the same time, the anonymity of a mask enhances a sense of power in the person who wears one. For victims, the result is enhanced fear.

Instilling fear in the populace and avoiding responsibility for wrongdoing are not proper governmental objectives in any nation that values personal liberty. But Republicans insist that ICE and Border Patrol officers wear masks as they spread terror throughout communities.

Doxing v. Death

Dressed for combat, ICE and Border Patrol officers roam the streets, generate protests, and respond with tear gas, smoke bombs and deadly force. Since ICE began Trump’s crackdown, their bullets have struck at least 10 people — including four U.S. citizens. They have killed three of them.

Meanwhile, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and other senior members of the administration pledge to “stand behind” the shooters, wrongly claim that the officers have “unqualified immunity” (they don’t), and falsely blame the victims as “domestic terrorists” (they weren’t).

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is concerned about doxing. Recently, Tillis asserted, “In today’s world, I could take a picture of you and I guarantee you within 12 hours, I will have facial recognition of you, and then I dox you. If you are in an active, potentially dangerous situation, I’ve got no problem with them putting a mask on.”

Routinely, police officers and other law enforcement officials “are in active, potentially dangerous” situations too. But unlike ICE, those officers haven’t created those dangerous situations. And unlike ICE, they respond with deescalation strategies to defuse them.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “What I will tell you is the president is never going to waver in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws and protecting the public safety of the American people and his ardent support of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol who, unfortunately, the Democrat Party has made a decision to demonize.”

Preventing ICE and Border Patrol officers from hiding their identities as they morph into Trump’s personal paramilitary force isn’t demonizing them. It’s recognizing their danger and requiring them to function like every other law enforcement officer in the country.

Unmasking ICE won’t stop the damage that Trump’s immigration crackdown is inflicting on America every day. But it would send a message of accountability to a federal law enforcement agency that is out of control. And it just might save lives.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This post first appeared at Common Dreams on January 27, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

I was born and raised in Minnesota. One of my childhood homes in south Minneapolis is less than a mile from the scene of Saturday’s brutal Border Patrol killing. The victim was 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a US citizen born in Illinois and a registered ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs hospital.

Pretti’s crime: He was “Minnesota nice.”

Before proceeding further, please watch this New York Times video. But be warned – IT IS VIOLENT, GRAPHIC, AND DISTURBING:

1:02

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-federal-agents-video.html

A CNN compilation of bystander videos confirms that Border Patrol officers took Pretti’s gun before shooting him 10 times:·

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/24/us/invs-videos-show-federal-officer-recovered-gun

And USA Today offers a second-by-second analysis: https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2026/01/24/minneapolis-shooting-video-analysis-alex-pretti/88338183007/

Now contrast what you just observed with the Trump administration’s four-step playbook for avoiding accountability: Lie, double-down, deflect, and cover-up.

Step #1: Lie

Almost immediately, the Department of Homeland Security issued a false statement exonerating Border Patrol officers and blaming Pretti for his death:

· “At 9:05 AM CT,… an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun….”

No. Pretti approached the officers with a cellphone as he filmed their encounter with two protesters. Then he tried to aid a protester whom officers had shoved to the ground.

· “The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted.”

No. The officers didn’t even know that Pretti had a gun until seven of them had already swarmed, pepper-sprayed, and wrestled him to the ground. Then one of the officers exclaimed with surprise, “He has a gun!”

At that point, several officers were on top of Pretti. A gun matching the description of the one that DHS said Pretti owned (and for which he had a permit in the open-carry state of Minnesota) emerged from the group. After Pretti had been disarmed, an officer shot him in the back at close range. As the officer continued firing, another officer shot Pretti as he lay on the ground.

The agents fired a total of at least 10 shots.

Step #2: Double Down

During a six-minute press appearance, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino doubled-down on the lies. He said that an “individual approached Border Patrol agents with a nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun.”

No. It was a cellphone.

“The agents attempted to disarm this individual, but he violently resisted.”

No. Pretti was on the ground when officers noticed his gun and took it.

“Fearing for his life and lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots.”

No. Two agents fired a total of 10 shots as Pretti lay on the street with his hands over his head.

“The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID.”

I don’t know what an “accessible ID” is, but Minnesota is an open-carry state and Pretti had a permit to own the gun.

“This looked like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

There is no evidence supporting that claim.

“The officer was highly trained and had been serving as a Border Patrol agent for eight years. The officer has extensive training as a range safety officer and less lethal officer…”

Two officers fired a total of 10 shots at a man who had been disarmed. What about the second shooter? And what training recommends firing 10 shots at a defenseless US citizen lying on the ground?

Bovino then took questions but refused to answer them:

Q: “When did agents learn that he had a gun, and did he ever brandish that weapon at them?

Bovino: “This situation again is evolving. This situation is under investigation. Those facts will come to light. This particular incident is being investigated, just like we investigate other similar incidents like we’ve done over the past several years. It’s in the hands of professionals as facts will come to light.”

The videos show that Pretti never brandished a weapon at anyone. As for an investigation, the federal government had refused to allow Minnesota officials to participate after an officer killed Renee Nicole Good two weeks earlier. But this time, Minnesota officials took two extraordinary steps: the state obtained a warrant to search the public street where the ICE officers had killed Pretti; and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order barring federal officials from altering or destroying evidence.

Q: “Did he have an additional gun, or was the gun removed from the scene?... From the video, it doesn’t seem like he pulled a gun on anyone…. When did the gun come out?”

Bovino: “Again, this situation is evolving. This is under investigation. Those facts will come to light…”

The gun never “came out” until officers discovered and removed it after forcing Pretti to the ground.

Step #3: Deflect – Blame the Victim…and Anyone Else

Trump’s deputy chief of staff and the architect of Trump’s immigration policy, Stephen Miller, tripled down on the lies. Others quickly followed.

· Miller said Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” and “would-be assassin.”

· Trump blamed Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) for “inciting insurrection.” He posted that they were leading a “subversive effort” against law enforcement “the likes of which we have not seen, probably, since the Civil War.”

· Attorney General Pam Bondi offered Walz a deal. One of her demands revealed the true motive behind Trump’s aggressive immigration surge in Minnesota: leverage. Trump is looking ahead at the November midterm elections, doesn’t like what he sees, and is preparing to upend them. That’s why Bondi told Walz to turn over the state’s voter rolls and maybe it “will help bring back law and order to Minnesota.“ (A few days earlier, Trump’s Justice Department had already subpoenaed numerous Minnesota officials, including Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.)

· Homeland Security Secretary Kristia Noem parroted Bovino’s lies that Pretti “arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She said that her assertion of “domestic terrorism” was just “the facts.”

· Vice President JD Vance posted that the events in Minneapolis were “engineered chaos” caused by “far left agitators, working with local authorities.”

· On Fox News, FBI Director Kash Patel characterized Pretti as a violent actor.

Step #4: Repeat – and Cover-Up as Needed

Trump’s minions had falsely smeared Renee Nicole Good as a “domestic terrorist” too. Then the Justice Department announced that the civil rights division would not even investigate whether her killer had used excessive force – as it typically has done in such situations. Instead, the Department would investigate the victim and her partner. Days later, six senior career federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned over the issue.

Noem announced that DHS would lead the Pretti investigation – with assistance from the FBI.

Bovino’s “Choices”

In a press conference on Sunday, January 25, Bovino lectured Minnesotans on “choices,” suggesting that Pretti’s choices had led to his death. But Pretti chose only to exercise his First and Second Amendment rights. For that, Trump’s newly expanded paramilitary organization chose to execute him in broad daylight. Bovino, Trump, and Trump’s sycophants chose to lie about it.

In the aftermath of Pretti’s killing, thousands of Minnesotans also made a choice: In subzero temperatures, they protested federal government’s aggressive occupation of Minneapolis that had led to yet another death. They know that the whole world is watching. And if I know anything about Minnesotans, they will prevail.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack:

[This article first appeared at Common Dreams on January 22, 2026.]

by Steven J. Harper

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s job is to calm the economic fears that Trump creates. He has followed a curious journey to get there, and now he’s sacrificing his integrity and legacy to remain.

Stage 1 – Democratic Fundraiser

Born in a small South Carolina town, Bessent, 63, graduated from Yale College in 1984 with a bachelor’s degree in political science. Eventually he went to work for Soros Fund Management – founded by the Republicans’ favorite Democratic demon, George Soros.

Bessent is openly gay, married since 2011 to a former New York City prosecutor, and has been a strong advocate for gay rights and marriage equality. In 2000, he supported Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, co-hosting a fundraiser for him in East Hampton, N.Y.. He donated $2,300 to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007. Although he donated $25,000 to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations in 2013, by then he was a major donor to Republican candidates.

Stage 2 – Republican Oligarch

Bessent returned to work for Soros in 2011 as chief investment officer but left in 2016 to form his own fund for which Soros provided a $2 billion anchor. From 2018 through 2021, as the global stock market broke records, the performance of Bessent’s fund was mediocre. Still, he amassed an estimated wealth of $600 million, although some reports refer to him as one of “Trump’s billionaires.”

Bessent donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration in 2016, but was not part of the first term’s inner circle. When Trump left office in disgrace after January 6 and under the cloud of other legal woes, most business leaders were reluctant to support him publicly. But as Bessent said on Roger Stone’s radio show in 2024, “I was all in for President Trump. I was one of the few Wall Street people backing him.”

The 68 senators who voted to confirm Bessent as Treasury Secretary probably hoped that, like Marco Rubio at the State Department, Bessent would be an “adult in the room.” Unlike other members of the clown car comprising Trump’s cabinet, Bessent would save the nation from Trump’s worst financial impulses.

After all, the country has never had a president who declared bankruptcy six times (although Trump told the Washington Post that he had only four because he counted the first three bankruptcies as one).

Stage 3 – Trump Sycophant

Instead of a principled voice for sound economic policies and principles, Bessent has become a cheerleader for Trump’s dubious financial moves. At times, he has resorted to rhetorical gymnastics to explain away Trump’s plain language. For example:

· On April 2, 2025, on what Trump called “Liberation Day,” the president announced his first round of universal tariffs. The thoughtless imposition of across-the-board tariffs was often nonsensical, such as tariffs on uninhabited islands near Antarctica and on countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. Trump sent global markets into a tailspin and U.S. interest rates upward. Five days later, Bessent admitted that he was surprised by the “impatience” of commentators and the financial markets. He tried to stop the carnage by saying that Trump’s bizarre action was simply a clever negotiating strategy – which made little sense to the penguins of Antarctica.

· In September, as major U.S. companies announced the loss of billions of dollars resulting from Trump’s tariffs, Bessent dismissed their concerns.

· Bessent – who is not an economist – has parroted the Trump line that tariffs are not a tax on American businesses and consumers because foreign exporters bear the cost. A broad consensus of economists has concluded otherwise, and a major study released on January 19 found that consumers and businesses – not foreign exporters – bear 96 percent of tariff costs.

· As Trump touted tariffs as a boon to manufacturing, Bessent acknowledged that the U.S. has been losing manufacturing jobs. But he insists that better days are coming.

· When Trump tried to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, Bessent said that the Fed’s independence was important, but that Trump had the right to fire her. After reportedly trying to persuade Trump not to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Bessent has now become one of Powell’s most vocal attackers – along with Trump’s Justice Department.

· When the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case challenging Trump’s tariffs, Bessent sat in the front row. Now he’s criticizing Powell’s decision to attend the oral argument in Cook’s case.

· Most recently, Trump blamed his threat of a global trade war on Denmark’s refusal to let the U.S. take over its longstanding territory, Greenland. In a social media post on Saturday morning, January 17, Trump announced new 10 percent tariffs on Denmark and the countries who stood with it in resisting Trump’s demand: Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Finland, effective February 1. He has threatened to increase the levies to 25 percent on June 1, unless Europe capitulates.

· Sunday evening, January 18, NPR’s Nick Schifrin posted a letter that Trump had previously sent to Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre. Trump revealed that after not winning last year’s Nobel Peace Prize “for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS,” he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America… The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

· Hours after the public disclosure of Trump’s message, Bessent held an impromptu press conference on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He tried to explain away Trump’s childish fit: “I think it’s a complete canard that the president will be doing this because of the Nobel Prize,” Bessent asserted. Accusing Trump’s critics of “hysteria,” Bessent said, “What I am urging everyone here to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and let things play out.” His words fell flat, and he looked as uncomfortable as he must have felt.

· In Brussels on January 21, the European Parliament protested Trump’s demand by suspending its work on the previously negotiated U.S.-E.U. trade deal. Meanwhile at Davos, Trump delivered a 90-minute screed that insulted many European leaders by name and reiterated his demand for Greenland. But later that day, Trump posted that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had worked out a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.” And he walked back the new European tariffs he’d threatened to impose on February 1.

Stage 4 – The Coming Quest for Rehabilitation

Bessent seems destined to follow the paths of other Trump enablers who eventually left the fold, like former Attorney General William Barr. He neutered the Mueller Report on Russian election interference during the 2016 election, only to resign 18 months later as January 6 approached. Eventually, Bessent will find himself on the outs with Trump, write a book, pursue a public speaking “redemption tour,” and explain that his government service saved the country from Trump’s worst impulses.

Such a rationalization rings hollow.

Bessent and his husband have two children studying in Europe. As they process the European reaction to Trump, they may ask him what he is doing to make the world a better place. The answer is also his legacy: In the process of sacrificing his personal integrity, Bessent has disserved the nation.

Steven J. Harper, an attorney, former partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former adjunct professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is the author of The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story. His op-eds have appeared in The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, USA Today, Crain’s, The Hill, Common Dreams, and other publications. He has been a columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather’s News & Guts, and The American Lawyer. Website:

https://thelawyerbubble.com

. Substack: