Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump signs order targeting law firm behind $787.5m Fox defamation suit

      by

      Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday punishing the law firm that helped Dominion voting systems obtain a $787.5m settlement from Fox for lies about the 2020 election.The order against the firm, Susman Godfrey, marks the latest effort by the president to punish attorneys and firms who have opposed his interests.The order seeks to cripple the firm by limiting the firm’s attorneys from accessing government buildings, revoking security clearances and essentially making it impossible for the firm to represent anyone who has business before the federal government.Trump’s rationale for targeting the firm was not immediately clear.“There were some very bad things that happened with these law firms,” he said in the oval office on Wednesday when he signed the order.Susman Godfrey represented Dominion voting systems in its lawsuit against Fox, which ended in a landmark settlement to avoid a trial. On Wednesday, a Delaware judge ruled in a separate lawsuit that the conservative outlet Newsmax Media defamed Dominion with its false reporting about a rigged 2020 election.Trump has also issued orders punishing five other firms for connections to political rivals: Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale.Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale all have filed suit against Trump and successfully earned preliminary court orders blocking them. Susman Godfrey on Tuesday filed an amicus brief on behalf of several high-ranking government officials supporting Perkins Coie’s legal challenge.“This firm is very involved in the election misconduct,” Stephen Miller, a top White House aide, said on Wednesday, according to Bloomberg.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPaul Weiss negotiated a widely-criticized settlement with Trump to have the order against it rescinded.Experts say the orders are blatantly unconstitutional and violate the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression and the right to counsel. They also say they are an obvious anti-democratic effort by the president to intimidate lawyers from challenging his administration in court.Several firms – Skadden, Arps, Meagher, & Flom; Milbank LLP; and Willkie, Farr, & Gallagher – have entered into preemptive settlements with the Trump administration to try and avoid executive orders. Many of the country’s largest and most prominent firms have stayed silent as several firms have been targeted. More

    • 125 Shares104 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge gives Trump administration deadline to justify Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation

      by

      An immigration judge ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration has until 5pm on Wednesday to present evidence as to why Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate, should be deported. She said that if the evidence does not support deportation, she may rule on Friday on his release from immigration detention.Khalil, a green-card holder and leader in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last year, was detained on 8 March. The Trump administration claims that his presence has adverse foreign policy consequences, an argument decried by his legal team as a blatant free speech violation. The government has not provided any evidence that he broke the law, a typical condition for revoking permanent residency.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can “either can provide sufficient evidence or not”, said the judge, Jamee Comans, from her courtroom in Jena, Louisiana. “If he’s not removable, I’m going to terminate this case on Friday.”A lawyer for DHS told the judge: “We have evidence we will submit.”During the hearing, Khalil sat beside an empty chair, his immigration attorneys and counsel appearing over video on a flatscreen TV. Behind him sat a handful of supporters, some of whom had been directed by security to remove keffiyehs. Khalil, in navy blue detention-issued clothes, sat calmly, sometimes fingering a set of prayer beads.The proceedings were delayed as Comans tried to pick the attorneys out of the nearly 600 people – media, supporters and observers – attempting to join the video call.“This is highly unusual,” began Comans, in reference to the number of people attempting to watch the hearing.“Your honor, I’d appreciate it if you could let my wife in,” Khalil said softly into the microphone. A moment later, the face of Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, appeared on the screen.“Your honor, there is obviously a lot of public interest in this case, and we would appreciate if there could be online access” granted to the public, began Khalil’s immigration lawyer, Mark Van Der Hout. Comans denied this request and added, seeming frustrated, that she was “very, very close” to making the rest of the legal team appear in person as well.Van Der Hout said they had requested DHS’s evidence of the allegations more than two weeks ago and had not received a response. “We cannot plead until we know the specific allegations,” he added.The DHS also alleges that Khalil failed to disclose on his visa application that he had previously worked in a Syrian office of the British embassy and for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), before becoming a member of a pro-Palestinian activist group at Columbia.Van Der Hout requested to postpone a follow-up hearing Comans had set for Friday, noting: “We may have to depose the secretary of state” due to the nature of the charges against Khalil.Comans declined, telling him: “You’re in the wrong court for that.” Indicating she wanted to move the case along, she added: “I’m like you, Mr Van Der Hout: I’d like to see the evidence.”Apart from his immigration case, Khalil is challenging his detention in a separate case before a federal judge in New Jersey. More

    • 163 Shares93 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court blocks ruling that 16,000 fired federal workers must be rehired

      by

      The US supreme court has handed Donald Trump a reprieve from a judge’s ruling that his administration must rehire 16,000 probationary workers fired in its purge of the federal bureaucracy.A day after ruling in the White House’s favor to allow the continued deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, the court gave the White House a less clear-cut victory in halting the order by a California court that dismissed workers from six government agencies must be rehired.The court struck down by a 7-2 majority last month’s ruling by US district court judge William Alsup because non-profit groups who had sued on behalf of the fired workers had no legal standing.It did not rule on the firings themselves, which affected probationary workers in the Pentagon, the treasury, and the departments of energy, agriculture, interior and veterans affairs.“The district court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case,” the unsigned ruling read. “But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the district court’s preliminary injunction.”Two of the court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.The victory, though limited, is likely to embolden the Trump administration in the belief that the spate of legal reverses it has faced since taking office can be eventually overturned in the supreme court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, due largely to three rightwing judges Trump nominated to the bench during his first presidency.The extent of Tuesday’s victory was qualified by the fact that it does not affect a separate order by a judge in Maryland applying to the same agencies plus several others. Judge James Bredar of the Maryland federal district court ordered the administration to reinstate workers in response to a case brought by 19 states and the government of Washington DC.In the California ruling, the court heard how staff were informed by a templated email from the office of personnel management that they were losing their jobs for performance-related reasons. “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest,” the email said.While accepting that workforce reductions were acceptable if carried out “correctly under the law”, Alsup said workers had been fired for bogus reasons.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee, and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well, that’s a lie,” he said.In filings to the supreme court, the acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued that Alsup had exceeded his powers.“The court’s extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the executive branch’s powers of personnel management on the flimsiest of grounds and the hastiest of timelines,” she wrote. “That is no way to run a government. This court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.” More

    • 175 Shares106 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders: law firms that cut deals with Trump administration ‘sell out their soul’

      by

      Law firms that cut deals with Donald Trump’s administration after the president issued executive orders targeting attorneys who challenge his priorities are demonstrating “absolute cowardice”, the independent US senator Bernie Sanders has said.“They’re zillion-dollar law firms, and money, money, money” is all that motivates them, the popular Vermont lawmaker who caucuses with Democrats said in a feature interview on the latest CBS News Sunday Morning. “So they’re going to sell out their souls to be able to make money here in Washington.”Sanders’ remarks provided a notable condemnation of law firms who had represented political rivals of Trump then chose the path of least resistance after he aimed orders that threatened to cripple them. The orders sought to revoke security clearances, ban attorneys from accessing federal buildings, and – if they do business with the government – to force the targeted firm’s clients to disclose existing relationships with them.Some of the US’s most prominent legal practices subsequently capitulated. Willkie, Farr and Gallagher; Milbank LLP; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom all reached deals with the White House meant to avoid Trump’s orders.In exchange, the firms would perform pro bono work for causes that are dear to them and Trump while also declining to engage in race-based hiring.Some firms, on the other hand, have sought to stand up to Trump. Perkins Coie got a court injunction blocking much of an executive order from Trump that targeted the firm. Hundreds of law firms and former judges have signed on to court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its opposition to Trump.Meanwhile, after suing over Trump orders directed at them, Jenner & Block as well as WilmerHale were able to secure court mandates impeding most of his measures against them.Alums of the law firms which have yielded to Trump have voiced some of the strongest criticism for choosing that course of action.On Sunday, CBS asked Sanders what the cost was to the US when some of its most well-heeled institutions folded in that manner amid a standoff with Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It is indescribable,” Sanders said.Sanders on Sunday also contended that many of Trump’s maneuvers nearly three months into his second presidency had rendered the US into a “pseudo-democracy”. He singled out how Trump tasked Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, with slashing the size as well as funding of various federal government agencies and services.The multibillionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X landed the role after spending more than $270m supporting Trump’s successful run for the White House in November.“Look, you get one vote, and Elon Musk can spend $270m to help elect Trump,” Sanders told CBS. “Does that sound like a democracy to you?” More

    • 163 Shares72 Views

      in US Politics

      DoJ lawyer put on leave after not backing erroneous deportation of Maryland man

      by

      A federal justice department attorney has been placed on leave by the Trump administration for purportedly failing to defend the administration vigorously enough after it says it erroneously deported a Maryland man to El Salvador, which a US judge called a “wholly lawless” detention.The action against justice department lawyer Erez Reuveni came after US district judge Paula Xinis had ordered that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who lived in the US legally with a work permit, be returned to Maryland despite the Trump administration’s position that it cannot return him from a sovereign nation.The administration has appealed the case, and a ruling is expected as soon as Sunday night ahead of an 11.59pm Monday deadline for his return, which was set by the judge.Donald Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, went on Fox News Sunday and announced there that Reuveni was no longer actively working on the Abrego Garcia case or in the justice department in general.At a court hearing on Friday, Reuveni struggled to answer questions from the judge about the circumstances of Abrego Garcia’s deportation.Reuveni said he had raised questions with US officials about why the federal government could not bring back Abrego Garcia but had received no “satisfactory” answer. He acknowledged what he called an “absence of evidence” justifying Abrego Garcia’s detention and deportation.Of Reuveni, Bondi told Fox News Sunday: “It’s a pending matter right now. He was put on administrative leave by [deputy US attorney general] Todd Blanche on Saturday.“You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client.”Reuveni’s supervisor, August Flentje, was also placed on leave, ABC News reported.The justice department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report.Reuveni and Flentje, who according to his LinkedIn page is the deputy director of the justice department’s office of immigration litigation, civil division, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Trump’s administration asserted in previous court filings that it had erroneously deported Abrego Garcia to his home country despite a previous court order prohibiting his removal.The White House and administration officials have accused Abrego Garcia of being a criminal gang member, but there are no pending charges. His lawyers have denied the allegation.Xinis, in a written order on Sunday explaining her Friday ruling, said “there were no legal grounds for his arrest, detention or removal” or evidence that Abrego Garcia was wanted for crimes in El Salvador.“Rather, his detention appears wholly lawless,” she wrote in the filing.Abrego Garcia had complied fully with all directives from immigration officials, including annual check-ins, and had never been charged with or convicted of any crime, the judge wrote.Abrego Garcia was stopped and detained by immigration agents on 12 March and questioned about his alleged affiliation with the MS-13 gang, which he has denied.Abrego Garcia has been detained in El Salvador’s terror confinement center, colloquially known as Cecot, which the judge called “one of the most dangerous prisons in the western hemisphere”.The Trump administration has faced criticism in the US courts and elsewhere of its stepped-up enforcement against immigration rights. A judge in Washington DC is separately weighing whether the Trump administration violated a court order not to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members amid ongoing legal proceedings.Some of those deported have active asylum cases, and civil rights groups have argued the administration has failed to provide due process under the law.Bondi on Sunday vowed to continue the administration’s deportations, maintaining: “The best thing to do is to get these people out of our country.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court allows Trump administration to freeze teacher-training grants

      by

      The US supreme court is letting the Trump administration temporarily freeze $65m in teacher-training grants that would promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a 5-4 decision.The decision came down on Friday afternoon, with five of the court’s conservatives – Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh – in the majority. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented.In the unsigned opinion, the court said that the states made it clear “that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running”, but the Trump administration had a strong case that it would not be able to reclaim any of the funds spent while the lower court’s order remained in place.The cuts to more than 100 programs had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the justice department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed Donald Trump’s agenda.Friday’s order was the first time in three attempts that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what it wanted on an emergency basis.US district judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were probably driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the education department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.The two programs at issue – the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development – provide more than $600m in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.Despite Joun’s finding that the programs already were being affected, the high court’s conservative majority wrote that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now. By contrast, the majority said in an unsigned opinion, the federal government probably wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if it ultimately wins the lawsuit.
      Kagan wrote in dissent that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.In a separate opinion, Brown Jackson wrote: “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency.”
      The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic president Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.Boston public schools have already had to fire several full-time employees due to the loss of grant funding, and the College of New Jersey has also canceled the rest of its teacher-residency program. California State University has ended support for two dozen students in a similar program, and eliminated financial assistance for 50 incoming students. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 80 ex-staffers of top law firm express ‘deep outrage’ over Trump deal

      by

      More than 80 former employees of Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom sent a letter to the law firm on Friday expressing “deep outrage” over its decision to reach an agreement with Donald Trump in order to avoid an executive order punishing the firm.Skadden, a top-ranked law firm, reached an agreement, announced on 28 March, to commit at least $100m in pro-bono services to causes both the firm and the president support, including assisting veterans, law enforcement, local government officials and combatting antisemitism. The agreement also says Skadden won’t engage in race-based hiring.In exchange, Skadden will avoid being the subject of one of Trump’s executive orders punishing law firms. The president has issued orders targeting several firms, threatening to cripple them by revoking security clearances, barring attorneys from access to government buildings, and forcing clients to disclose their relationship to the firm if they do business with the government.Experts see Trump’s efforts to intimidate lawyers from taking on cases adverse to the president’s interests as deeply anti-democratic, and employees and former employees of many of the firms targeted by the president have pushed back.“As attorneys, we all took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” the letter from former Skadden employees said. “As one of the country’s most powerful and most profitable law firms, Skadden’s influence over the legal profession cannot be understated. In light of Skadden’s position, it is outrageous and self-interested that rather than fulfilling the legal profession’s oath and standing in solidarity with fellow law firms that were fighting to uphold the Constitution, Skadden caved to bullying tactics instead.”Many of the country’s biggest and most profitable firms have stayed largely silent on the executive orders. The firms, which include places like Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore – notably did not join more than 500 US law firms that signed onto an amicus brief on Friday in support of a challenge to the order.“Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve – now – to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases,” said the brief, which was authored and signed by Donald Verrilli Jr, who served as the solicitor general under Barack Obama.Skadden reached the preemptive agreement after Perkins Coie, another firm targeted by Trump, successfully got a court to issue an injunction blocking most parts of the order. Skadden’s agreement was also announced the same day two other prominent firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, sued over executive orders targeting them. Both firms were also able to secure court orders blocking most of the provisions in Trump’s orders against them.Some lawyers at major law firms have been so angry over the position their employers have taken that they have quit.“I believe, as I know many of you do, that what the current presidential administration is doing is wrong,” Thomas Sipp, a Skadden associate, who quit this week wrote in a departure email. “That we are sliding into an autocracy where those in power are above the rule of law. Skadden’s agreement with the Trump administration sent our country deeper down this descent.”Law students and attorneys are also closely monitoring which firms are heeding Trump. A spreadsheet circulating online lists more than a dozen firms who have taken action to accommodate the administration in some way, even if they haven’t been targeted.One first-year law student at one of the country’s top law schools told the Guardian on Thursday that he was tracking how firms were responding and it was influencing where they were applying for a job.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSkadden’s capitulation, the alumni wrote in their letter, had only paved the way for Trump to further bully other firms into settling. Two other firms, Wilkie, Farr, and Gallgher and Milbank LLP have also reached preemptive deals with Trump.“We were shocked to hear about Skadden’s concessions, concessions given under the threat of an executive order whose substance had already been blocked by a federal court,” the letter said. “The deals Willkie Farr and Milbank struck with President Trump this week evinces the deeply disturbing behavior that Skadden helped normalize.”The agreement also takes aim at the firm’s prestigious Skadden fellowship, in which 25 to 30 lawyers a year from the nation’s top law schools work on social justice issues. Under the agreement with Trump, lawyers in the fellowship have to “represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals”. At least five lawyers from the fellowship have to be assigned to “assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects”.“As alumni who have proudly represented Skadden in a variety of practice areas, we call on you to clearly affirm the firm’s commitment to reject the administration’s attacks on the judiciary, the Constitution, and rule of law before it’s too late,” the letter said. More

    • 200 Shares95 Views

      in US Politics

      I worked in Trump’s first administration. Here’s why his team is using Signal | Kevin Carroll

      by

      No senior US government official in the now-infamous “Houthi PC Small Group” Signal chat seemed new to that kind of group, nor surprised by the sensitivity of the subject discussed in that insecure forum, not even when the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, chimed in with details of a coming airstrike. No one objected – not the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who was abroad and using her personal cellphone to discuss pending military operations; not even the presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, who was in Moscow at the time. Yet most of these officials enjoy the luxury of access to secure government communications systems 24/7/365.Reasonable conclusions may be drawn from these facts. First, Trump’s national security cabinet commonly discusses secret information on insecure personal devices. Second, sophisticated adversaries such as Russia and China intercept such communications, especially those sent or received in their countries. Third, as a result, hostile intelligence services now probably possess blackmail material regarding these officials’ indiscreet past conversations on similar topics. Fourth, as a first-term Trump administration official and ex-CIA officer, I believe the reason these officials risk interacting in this way is to prevent their communications from being preserved as required by the Presidential Records Act, and avoid them being discoverable in litigation, or subject to a subpoena or Freedom of Information Act request. And fifth, no one seems to have feared being investigated by the justice department for what appears to be a violation of the Espionage Act’s Section 793(f), which makes gross negligence in mishandling classified information a felony; the FBI director, Kash Patel, and attorney general, Pam Bondi, quickly confirmed that hunch. Remarkably, the CIA director John Ratcliffe wouldn’t even admit to Congress that he and his colleagues had made a mistake.The knock-on effects of this are many. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, needs to address his colleagues’ characterization of European partners as “pathetic” with foreign ministers now dubious of the US’s intentions. Allies already hesitant to share their countries’ secrets with the US, because of valid counterintelligence concerns regarding Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin, will clam up even more rather than risk their sources being compromised by Trump’s appointees. Gabbard and Ratcliffe may have perjured themselves before Congress regarding whether their Signal chat included classified national defense information; certainly, their credibility on Capitol Hill is shredded. As a former CIA case officer, I suspect these directors’ own subordinates will prefer not to share restricted handling information with them going forward. Hegseth, confirmed as secretary by a vote of 51-50 despite concerns over his character and sobriety, lost any moral authority to lead the defense department by reflexively lying about his misconduct, claiming that the story by Jeffrey Goldberg, the unsuspecting Atlantic editor improvidently included in the text chain, is somehow a “hoax” despite the fact the White House contemporaneously confirmed its authenticity.Trump dismisses this scandal, now under investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general, as a witch-hunt, and his followers will fall in line. But every senator who voted to confirm these national security officials, despite doubts regarding their temperaments and qualifications, quietly knows that they own part of this debacle. For fear of facing Republican primary challengers funded by Elon Musk, these senators failed in their solemn constitutional duty to independently provide wise advice and consent regarding nominations to the US’s most important war cabinet posts. How would the senators have explained their misfeasance to service members’ bereaved families – their constituents, perhaps – had the Houthis used information from the Signal chat, such as the time a particular target was to be engaged, to reorient their antiaircraft systems to intercept the inbound aircraft?I happen to have served in Yemen as a sensitive activities officer for special operations command (central). Conspicuous in their absence from the Signal chat were uniformed officers responsible for the recent combat mission: the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff Adm Christopher Grady, central command’s Gen Michael Kurilla and special operations command’s Gen Bryan Fenton. These good men would have raised the obvious objection: loose talk on insecure phones about a coming operation jeopardizes the lives of US sailors and marines standing watch on warships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, naval aviators flying over the beach towards the target, and likely special operators, intelligence officers and human sources working in the shadows on the ground.You don’t need 30-plus years in uniform to know that holding a detailed yet insecure discussion about a pending military mission is wrong; the participants in the chat knew, too. They just didn’t care, not as much as they cared about keeping their communications from being legally discoverable. They’re safe in the knowledge that in a new era without benefit of the rule of law, Patel’s FBI and Bondi’s justice department will never bring charges against them, for a crime which uniformed service members are routinely prosecuted for vastly smaller infractions. As the attorney general made plain in her remarks about this matter, federal law enforcement is now entirely subservient to Trump’s personal and political interests.Most senior US government officials in 2025 are, unfortunately, far gone from the fine old gentleman’s tradition of honorable resignation. But participants in the Signal chat should consider the Hollywood producer character Jack Woltz’s pained observation to the mafia lawyer Tom Hagen in The Godfather about his indiscreetly wayward mistress: “A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous.” Trump, the justice department and the Republican Congress may not make them resign, but to the US’s allies and adversaries, and to their own subordinates, these officials now look ridiculous.

      Kevin Carroll served as senior counselor to the former homeland security secretary John Kelly and as a CIA and army officer More