Tuesday, March 25, 2025

IMPORTANT NEW BOOKS:

Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America
by Elie Mystal
The New Press, 2025


[Publication date: March 25, 2025]

The New York Times bestselling author brings his trademark legal acumen and passionate snark to offer a brilliant takedown of ten shocking pieces of legislation that continue to perpetuate hate, racial bias, injustice, and inequality today—an urgent yet hopeful read for our current political climate

“Mystal is a grassroots legal superhero, and his superpower is the ability to explain to the masses in clear language the all-too-human forces at play behind the making of our laws.” —Michael Eric Dyson, New York Times bestselling author of Tears We Cannot Stop

In Bad Law, the New York Times bestselling author of Allow Me To Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution reimagines what our legal system, and society at large, could look like if we could move past legislation plagued by racism, misogyny, and corruption. Through accessible yet detailed prose and trenchant wit, Mystal argues that these egregiously awful laws—his “Bill of Wrongs”—continue to cause systematic and individual harm and should be repealed completely.

By exposing the flawed foundations of the rules we live by, and through biting humor and insight, Bad Law offers a crisp, pertinent take on:

abortion and the Hyde Amendment, and the role federal funding, or lack thereof, has played in depriving women of necessary health and reproductive care


immigration and illegal reentry, and the illusions that have been sold to us regarding immigration policy, reform, and whiteness at large


voter registration laws, and how the right to vote has become a moral issue, and ironically, antidemocratic


gun control and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and the extreme yet obvious dangers of granting immunity to gun manufacturers

But, as the man Samantha Bee calls “irrepressible and righteously indignant” and Matt Levine of Bloomberg Opinion calls “the funniest lawyer in America,” points out, these laws do not come to us from on high; we write them, and we can and should unwrite them. In a fierce, funny, and wholly original takedown spanning all the hot-button topics in the country today, one of our most brilliant legal thinkers points the way to a saner tomorrow.


REVIEWS:

Praise for Bad Law:


“A smart, big-picture takedown of the legal bulwarks of white supremacism and its privileges.”
—Kirkus Reviews


"Elie Mystal offers a searing, deeply analytical but accessible critique of the prevailing legal regimes in the U.S., which are vestiges of the racism and misogyny that define much of our country’s history. Using the wit and insight he has become known for in his writing and commentary, Mystal makes the compelling case that there is a profound disconnect between the laws that we have and the laws that we need and want. Anyone who supports achieving a truly pluralistic, multiracial democracy in this nation should take this analysis seriously."
—Russ Feingold, former U.S. senator and president of the American Constitution Society


"Elie Mystal is a grassroots legal superhero, and his superpower is the ability to explain to the masses in clear language the all-too-human forces at play behind the making of our laws. In Bad Law, Mystal also speaks as an irreverent Moses throwing down on the Ten Commandments of Lousy Laws, replacing ‘Thou Shalt Not’ with ‘Should Not Be,’ since this legislation should no longer be on the books or on our backs. Thank God this brilliant and angry prophet doesn’t stutter as he tosses these laws into a burning bush of common sense that fuels the common good."
—Michael Eric Dyson, university distinguished professor, Vanderbilt University, and New York Times bestselling author of Tears We Cannot Stop


"Nobody can break down the legal systems shaping America today better than Elie Mystal. With the wit of Chris Rock and clarity of Jay-Z, Mystal explains how these laws contribute to systemic inequality, political corruption, societal stagnation and most importantly what must be done to challenge and reform them."
—Charlamagne tha God, radio host of The Breakfast Club and New York Times bestselling author


"Sure, a theocratic Supreme Court and Trump concierge legislatures are turning hate and bias into ‘laws,’ but at least Elie Mystal is here in Bad Law to warn and explain with clarity and humor—while humor is still legal."
—Keith Olbermann, sports and political commentator and writer


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

 
Elie Mystal is the New York Times bestselling author of Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution (The New Press) as well as The Nation’s legal analyst and justice correspondent, and the legal editor of the More Perfect podcast on the Supreme Court for Radiolab. He is an Alfred Knobler Fellow at Type Media Center, and a frequent guest on MSNBC and Sirius XM. He lives in New York.


Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning
by Peter Beinert
Knopf, 2025
 

[Publication date: January 28, 2025]
 
 

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • A bold, urgent appeal from the acclaimed columnist and political commentator, addressing one of the most important issues of our time

“At this painful moment, Peter Beinart’s voice is more vital than ever. His reach is broad—from the tragedy of today’s Middle East to the South Africa he knows well to events centuries ago—his scholarship is deep, and his heart is big. This book is not just about being Jewish in the shadow of today’s war, but about being a person who cares for justice.” —Adam Hochschild, author of American Midnight and King Leopold’s Ghost

In Peter Beinart’s view, one story dominates Jewish communal life: that of persecution and victimhood. It is a story that erases much of the nuance of Jewish religious tradition and warps our understanding of Israel and Palestine. After Gaza, where Jewish texts, history, and language have been deployed to justify mass slaughter and starvation, Beinart argues, Jews must tell a new story. After this war, whose horror will echo for generations, they must do nothing less than offer a new answer to the question: What does it mean to be a Jew?

Beinart imagines an alternate narrative, which would draw on other nations’ efforts at moral reconstruction and a different reading of Jewish tradition. A story in which Israeli Jews have the right to equality, not supremacy, and in which Jewish and Palestinian safety are not mutually exclusive but intertwined. One that recognizes the danger of venerating states at the expense of human life.

Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza is a provocative argument that will expand and inform one of the defining conversations of our time. It is a book that only Peter Beinart could write: a passionate yet measured work that brings together his personal experience, his commanding grasp of history, his keen understanding of political and moral dilemmas, and a clear vision for the future.
 

REVIEWS:
 

“This timely book constitutes a reckoning with the vast gulf between the Jewish tradition that Beinart cherishes and what has replaced it in the practice of the state of Israel, and of those who have come to worship that state. It is urgently needed.”
—Rashid Khalidi, New York Times bestselling author of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine


“At this painful moment, Peter Beinart’s voice is more vital than ever. His reach is broad—from the tragedy of today’s Middle East to the South Africa he knows well to events centuries ago—his scholarship is deep, and his heart is big. This book is not just about being Jewish in the shadow of today’s war, but about being a person who cares for justice.”
—Adam Hochschild, author of American Midnight and King Leopold’s Ghost


“Guided by a deep familiarity with Jewish history and sources, and a piercing awareness of Palestinian realities, Peter Beinart unflinchingly peels away the layers of propagandist misdirection deployed to defend Israel's actions. This essential book leads us to a universal and Jewish reawakening that is both humane and hopeful.”
—Daniel Levy, President of the US-Middle East Project and former Israeli peace negotiator


“An urgent, carefully argued and compelling read.”
—Rachel Shabi, author of Off-White: The Truth About Antisemitism


“[Beinart] has built a reputation for being an incisive writer and public intellectual, with a knack for admitting when he’s wrong. . . . In Beinart’s latest book,he appeals to his fellow Jews to grapple with the morality of their defense of Israel. . . . He argues for a Jewish tradition that has no use for Jewish supremacy and treats human equality as a core value.”

—The Guardian


“Uses the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict as well as Beinart’s deep Jewish faith to chart a path forward for peace and safety for both Israelis and Palestinians.” 
—MSNBC


“Over his lifetime, Peter Beinart went from being a fierce defender of Israel to one of its fiercest critics. In his latest book, the professor of journalism and political science makes an appeal to other American Jews in the wake of the war in Gaza.”
—NPR’s Morning Edition


“Invaluable. . . . Beinart’s cogent and caring analysis guides readers toward moral clarity and a sharper understanding of the crisis and its profoundly devastating consequences.”—Booklist


“Beinart issues an impassioned critique of the American Jewish community’s reaction to the war in Gaza. . . . Urgent and thought-provoking, this is sure to spark debate.”
—Publishers Weekly


“A learned, powerful book that asks tough—if contentious—questions.”
—Kirkus Reviews
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 

PETER BEINART is professor of journalism and political science at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also editor at large of Jewish Currents, a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times, an MSNBC political commentator, and a nonresident fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He writes the Beinart Notebook newsletter on Substack.com. He lives in New York with his family.



Marcuse
by Jacob McNulty
Routledge, 2025


[Publication date: November 14, 2024]
 

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) is known to many as a leading figure of 1960s counterculture, and a "Guru of the New Left."However, the deeper philosophical background to Marcuse's thought is often forgotten, especially his significant engagement with German idealism, ancient philosophy, and a broad spectrum of problems and issues from the philosophical tradition.

This much-needed book introduces and assesses Marcuse's philosophy and is ideal for those coming to his work for the first time. Jacob McNulty covers the following topics:

  • Marcuse's life and the background to his thought, including his formative period as a student of Husserl and Heidegger and as a philosopher in Horkheimer's Institute
  • Marcuse's recasting of metaphysics in light of Marxian and Freudian thought
  • Marcuse and German idealism, especially the role of Kant and Hegel
  • Marcuse's philosophy of human nature, his use of the late Freud's ideas of Eros and Thanatos
  • Marcuse as a critic of state and monopoly capitalism
  • Meaning, propaganda, and ideology: the political implications of language and also the centrality of free speech
  • Marcuse's aesthetics
  • Marcuse's legacy and his relationship to contemporary analytical philosophy (especially "analytic critical theory").
An outstanding and engaging introduction to a central figure in twentieth-century radical thought, Marcuse is essential reading for those in philosophy and related disciplines including political theory, sociology, and media and communication studies.


REVIEWS:

"McNulty reestablishes Marcuse’s credentials as a first-rate philosopher, while at the same time affirming Marcuse’s political commitments to critical Marxism and democratic socialism. With writing that is philosophically sophisticated, accessible and engaging, McNulty elaborates Marcuse’s theoretical positions on questions of epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of science, aesthetics and philosophical anthropology. Ranging confidently over the entire body of Marcuse’s work, McNulty has given us an excellent introduction to Marcuse’s critical philosophy." - John Abromeit, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA

"In this lucid and imaginative study, McNulty painstakingly reconstructs the key elements of Marcuse’s philosophy and demonstrates its enduring relevance. As the need for exploring new directions in thought and action becomes more pressing than ever, being guided so brilliantly into the heart of Marcuse’s engaged thinking could hardly be more valuable." - Espen Hammer, Temple University, USA
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 

Jacob McNulty is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, USA. He is the author of Hegel's Logic and Metaphysics (2023). His work on Rousseau, Fichte, and others has appeared in the European Journal of Philosophy, Journal of the History of Philosophy, and British Journal for the History of Philosophy.



Malcolm Before X
by Patrick Parr
University of Massachusetts Press, 2025



[Publication date: December 1, 2024]
 
A Kirkus Reviews Best Nonfiction Book of 2024
A Spectator Best Book of the Year
Finalist for the 2025 ASALH Book Prize

Drawing upon interviews, correspondence, and nearly 2000 pages of never-before-used prison records, Malcolm Before X is the definitive examination of the prison years of civil rights icon Malcolm X.

In February 1946, when 20-year-old Malcolm Little was sentenced to eight to ten years in a maximum-security prison, he was a petty criminal and street hustler in Boston. By the time he was paroled in August 1952, he had transformed into a voracious reader, joined the Black Muslims, and was poised to become Malcolm X, one of the most prominent and important intellectuals of the civil rights era. While scholars and commentators have exhaustively detailed, analyzed, and debated Malcolm X’s post-prison life, they have not explored these six and a half transformative years in any depth.

Paying particular attention to his time in prison, Patrick Parr’s Malcolm Before X provides a comprehensive and groundbreaking examination of the first twenty-seven years of Malcolm X’s life (1925–1965). Parr traces Malcolm’s African lineage, explores his complicated childhood in the Midwest, and follows him as he moves east to live with his sister Ella in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood, where he is convicted of burglary and sentenced.

Parr utilizes a trove of previously overlooked documents that include prison files and prison newspapers to immerse the reader into the unique cultures—at times brutal and at times instructional—of Charlestown State Prison, the Concord Reformatory, and the Norfolk Prison Colony. It was at these institutions that Malcolm devoured books, composed poetry, boxed, debated, and joined the Nation of Islam, changing the course of his life and setting the stage for a decade of antiracist activism that would fundamentally reshape American culture.

In this meticulously researched and beautifully written biography, the inspiring story of how Malcolm Little became Malcolm X is finally told.



REVIEWS:
 

"Parr has written the definitive story of the youth and early adulthood of one of the most dazzling and controversial civil rights leaders in American history."—Kirkus Reviews, starred review


"This first-rate biography looks at. . . one of the great conversion stories of modern history: a young man mired in crime raises himself up and, through self-discipline, becomes an explosive spokesperson for Black Americans."—Library Journal, starred review


"Ambitious, eye opening...Parr's book is a portrait of growth." - Martin Pengelly, The Guardian


"Parr's Malcolm Before X is an important addition to the literature on both black nationalism and the US criminal justice system...Thoroughly researched and crisply written, Parr's work provides the most complete examination yet of Malcolm's prison years." - Theodore Hamm, Jacobin


"Excerpts [from Malcolm X's autobiography] are supplemented with accounts from his family and friends, providing external perspectives that at times conflict with his own. The multiple accounts are managed well, adding layers and widening the scope of the narrative."—Foreword Reviews


"Patrick Parr's Malcolm Before X is a breathtaking act of intellectual reconstruction and a sublime literary achievement. Parr's book excavates the life changing, yet woefully underappreciated, six and a half years that Malcolm spent in prison, and masterfully probes the roots of his traumatic childhood and troubled young adulthood. Malcolm Before X for the first time puts us fully in touch with the contradictory yet constitutive forces that shaped one of the monumental lives of the twentieth century."—Michael Eric Dyson, author of Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X


"Malcolm Before X is strikingly original. Parr's prodigious research gives us the most richly documented book about Malcolm's early life that we will ever have. His account of how a good prison library can spark a personal transformation should resonate widely. A superb achievement."—David J. Garrow, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Bearing the Cross and Rising Star


"I have known Patrick Parr since 2019. The original research he shared with me was extremely helpful in writing one of my own books, The Awakening of Malcolm X. I believe Patrick's new book is an important addition to the story of my father's life."—Ilyasah Shabazz, author of Growing Up X: A Memoir by the Daughter of Malcolm X


"Patrick Parr has managed an extraordinary feat. In telling the story of Malcolm Little the child, the student, the burglar, the prisoner, he has helped us to more fully understand Malcolm X the orator, the leader, the radical thinker. Parr has unearthed remarkable documentary sources to tell the gripping and important story of the shaping of a great mind."—Jonathan Eig, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of King: A Life


"Patrick Parr's meticulously researched book gives us the most detailed account yet of this historic transformation—and offers lessons for today about the life-changing potential of prison libraries and educational programs."—Mark Whitaker, author of Saying It Loud: 1966-The Year Black Power Challenged the Civil Rights Movement


"More than any other previous biography of Malcolm X that I have read, in Malcolm Before X, Patrick Parr delivers an air-tight, well documented chronology of the well-known episodes in Malcolm's early life combined with a compelling, revelatory portrait of the six and a half transformative years he spent in prison."—Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a scholar, historian, journalist, writer, activist, and authority on the life and legacy of Malcolm X


"Patrick Parr has produced an extraordinary act of historical research and recovery. By taking Malcolm X's prison years seriously, Parr helps to restore the human being behind the legend. —Peniel Joseph, author of The Third Reconstruction: America's Struggle for Racial Justice in the Twenty-First Century



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 

Patrick Parr is professor of English at Lakeland University Japan. He is author of The Seminarian: Martin Luther King Jr. Comes of Age and his work has appeared in The Atlantic, Politico, USA Today, and The American Prospect. To learn more about the author, visit patrickparr.com.
 
Toussaint Louverture: The French Revolution and the Colonial Problem
by Aimé Césaire
Polity, 2025



[Publication date: February 11, 2025]

This book is the long-overdue publication in English of Aimé Césaire’s account of Toussaint Louverture, the legendary leader of the revolution in Saint-Domingue – a slave revolt against French colonial rule that led to the founding of the independent republic of Haiti. Saint-Domingue was the first country in modern times to confront the colonial question in practice and in all its complexity. When Toussaint Louverture burst onto the historical stage, various political movements already existed for political autonomy, free trade and social equality. But the French Revolution established a compelling understanding of universal liberty: the Declaration of Human Rights opened up the possibility of claims to liberty and equality by wealthy free Black men in the colony, claims which, when they could not be realized, led to the armed uprising of enslaved Blacks. A battle for the liberation of one class in colonial society resulted in a revolution to achieve equal rights for all men. And for universal emancipation to be possible, Saint-Domingue itself had to become independent.

Toussaint Louverture put the Declaration into practice unreservedly, demonstrating that there could be no pariah race. He inherited bands of fighters and united them as an army, turning a peasant revolt into a full-scale revolution, a population into a people and a colony into an independent nation-state.

Aimé Césaire’s historical and analytical gifts are magnificently displayed in this highly original analysis of the context and actions of the famous revolutionary leader. It will be of great interest to students and scholars of critical and cultural theory and of Latin American history as well as anyone concerned with the nature and impact of colonialism and race.


REVIEW:


"At work here is the pedagogy of Black revolutionary confraternity in an imperial frame. Césaire, poet and politician, gives us Louverture, precursor to anti-colonial history. Toussaint, unflinching champion of universal freedom, gives us Césaire, author of the origin story of anti-colonial struggle."
–Antoinette Burton, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Aimé Césaire (1913-2008) was born in Basse-Pointe, Martinique, and was an anticolonial theorist, activist, writer and poet.


......And the Dogs Were Silent/......Et les chiens se taisaient
by Aimé Césaire
Duke University Press, 2025


(English and French bilingual edition)

Translation by Alex Gil
 

[Publication date: August 27, 2024]
 
Available to readers for the first time, Aimé Césaire’s three-act drama . . . . . . And the Dogs Were Silent—written during the Vichy regime in Martinique in 1943 and lost until 2008—dramatizes the Haitian Revolution and the rise and fall of Toussaint Louverture as its heroic leader. This bilingual English and French edition stands apart from Césaire’s more widely known 1946 closet drama. Following the slave revolts that sparked the revolution, Louverture arrives as both prophet and poet, general and visionary. With striking dramatic technique, Césaire retells the revolution in poignant encounters between rebels and colonial forces, guided by a prophetic chorus and Louverture’s steady ethical and political vision. In the last act, we reach the hero’s betrayal, his imprisonment, and his last stand against the lures of compromise. Césaire’s masterwork is a strikingly beautiful and brutal indictment of colonial cruelty and an unabashed celebration of Black rebellion and victory.


REVIEWS:
 

“A distinguished poet and playwright, essayist, and historian, Aimé Césaire is a legend in anticolonial literary and intellectual history. The story Alex Gil weaves in his elegant introduction to .....And the Dogs Were Silent—of how a dispute between surrealists André Breton and Yvan Goll almost resulted in Césaire’s earliest known theatrical representation of the Haitian Revolution never seeing the light of day—is as fascinating as it is invaluable. This bilingual edition is a precious gift to readers, offering new biographical information about one of the Caribbean’s most beloved authors alongside Gil’s brilliant translation of what turns out to be one of Césaire’s most remarkable literary feats.”―Marlene L. Daut, author of, Awakening the Ashes: An Intellectual History of the Haitian Revolution


“This vital and beautifully translated text gives us new insight into Aimé Césaire and his intellectual journey. An exciting and useful work for teaching the Haitian Revolution, it enables us to think about the power and symbolism of literary representations of Haiti in new ways.”―Laurent Dubois, coeditor of, The Haiti Reader: History, Culture, Politics


"When combined with Césaire’s leftist politics, ...... And the Dogs Were Silent is by definition a revolutionary and subversive work. . . . Simultaneously beautiful, brutal, inspirational and frightening, ......And the Dogs Were Silent is a drama to be reckoned with."―Ron Jacobs, Counterpunch


"Gil’s superb translation adds a formidable new work to Césaire’s corpus."―Musab Younis, London Review of Books


ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND TRANSLATOR:



Aimé Césaire (1913–2008) was a Martinican poet, critic, essayist, playwright, and statesman; a founder of the Negritude movement; and one of the most influential Francophone Caribbean intellectuals of the twentieth century. He is the author of Journal of a Homecoming / Cahier d’un retour au pays natal, also published by Duke University Press.

Alex Gil is Senior Lecturer II and Associate Research Faculty of Digital Humanities in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at Yale University.
 

Trump's Return
by Noura Erakat, Robin D.G. Kelley, David Austin Walsh, Marshall Steinbaum, and Jeanne Morefield
‎Boston Review, 2025


[Publication Review: March 18, 2025]


Donald Trump is back in the White House. Boston Review issue Trump’s Return explores how he got there, what’s next, and how to resist, featuring David Austin Walsh, Robin D. G. Kelley, Noura Erakat, Marshall Steinbaum, Jeanne Morefield, and more.

Walsh takes us inside Trump’s motley coalition of tech billionaires and “America First” nativists, examining its crackups and assessing its strength. With the right’s strategy of anti-“wokeness” now effectively spent, will these alliances hold? Steinbaum reads Bidenomics in light of the long arc of Democrats’ economic policy since the Great Recession, finding that it neglected the biggest problem: inequality. And Morefield exposes the lie at the heart of MAGA’s “invasion” narrative about the fentanyl crisis, showing how decades of bipartisan fixation on enemies abroad―and denial of the exceptional savagery of capitalism at home―have led to this moment.

Looking forward, Erakat follows the imperial boomerang from Palestine as it deepens political repression in the United States; Kelley plots a revival of class solidarity as the only path to durable and meaningful resistance; plus more on the colossal scale of money in politics, the labor vote, and the promises and perils of progressive federalism.

The issue also includes Gianpaolo Baiocchi on lessons from Lula’s extraordinary success in building a workers’ party in Brazil, Joelle M. Abi-Rached on the trauma of political violence and Syria’s future after the fall of Assad, Aaron Bady on the right’s resurgent natalism and liberal panic about falling birthrates, and Samuel Hayim Brody on the reality of settler colonialism and the mystifications of Adam Kirsch.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Robin D. G. Kelley is Professor and Gary B. Nash Endowed Chair in U.S. History at UCLA. He is the author of Hammer and Hoe, Race Rebels, Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination, and Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of an American Original, among other titles. His writing has been featured in the Journal of American History, American Historical Review, Black Music Research Journal, African Studies Review, New York Times, The Crisis, The Nation, and Voice Literary Supplement.

Noura Erakat is a human rights attorney and assistant professor at George Mason University. She has served as legal counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and as a legal advocate for Palestinian refugee rights at the United Nations. Noura's research interests include human rights and humanitarian, refugee, and national security law. She is a frequent commentator, with recent appearances on CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NPR, among others, and her writings have been widely published in the national media and academic journals.

David Austin Walsh is a postdoctoral associate at the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism and a College Fellow at the University of Virginia. He splits his time between New Haven, CT, and Charlottesville, VA.

Marshall Steinbaum is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Utah and Senior Fellow in Higher Education Finance at the Jain Family Institute.

Jeanne Morefield is Associate Professor of Political Theory at Oxford and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Her latest book is Unsettling the World: Edward Said and Political Theory.

Palestinian Filmmaker Hamdan Ballal Taken by Israeli Soldiers After Attack by Settlers--The condition—and whereabouts—of the Academy Award-winning "No Other Land" co-director are currently unknown.



Hamdan Ballal holds his Oscar for Best Documentary Feature for "No Other Land" during the 97th Annual Academy Awards Governors Ball at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles on March 2, 2025. (Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
 
Palestinian Filmmaker Hamdan Ballal Taken by Israeli Soldiers After Attack by Settlers
 
The condition—and whereabouts—of the Academy Award-winning "No Other Land" co-director are currently unknown.

by Brett Wilkins
March 24, 2025
Common Dreams


Hamdan Ballal—the Academy Award-winning Palestinian filmmaker who co-directed the documentary No Other Land about the ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing of Masafer Yatta in the illegally occupied West Bank—was brutally attacked Monday by far-right settlers and then taken away by Israel Defense Forces troops, according to one of the film's Israeli co-directors.

"A group of settlers just lynched Hamdan Ballal, co-director of our film No Other Land," Yuval Abraham wrote on social media. "They beat him and he has injuries in his head and stomach, bleeding. Soldiers invaded the ambulance he called, and took him. No sign of him since."




Yuval Abraham יובל אברהם

@yuval_abraham

Follow

The group of armed KKK-like masked settlers that lynched No Other Land director Hamdan Ballal (still missing), caught here on camera.


Citing local residents, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretzreported that the soldiers who detained Ballal "were members of a rapid-response unit composed of settlers from nearby settlements," who "then handed him over to other soldiers."

Basel Adra, the film's other Palestinian co-director, posted, "I'm standing with Karam, Hamdan's 7-year-old son, near the blood of Hamdan's in his house, after settlers lynched him," adding that Ballal was "still missing after soldiers abducted him, injured and bleeding."

"This is how they erase Masafer Yatta," Adra added.

Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan posted video showing what he said was "the moment Israeli settlers launched a violent pogrom on the village of Susya in Hebron, injuring numerous residents and American activists" and Ballal.

Hassan said that "settlers raided homes, hurled stones, smashed windows and vehicles, and violently assaulted residents and solidarity activists," adding that "several people were injured" in the attack.

"When the ambulance arrived for Hamdan, Israeli soldiers stormed it and took him," he added. "There has been no sign of him since."

Israel has occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem since 1967, and today, more than 700,000 Israelis live in over 140 settlements there. Under international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention, both Israel's 58-year occupation of Palestine and its settlements are illegal. Last July, the International Court of Justice—where Israel stands accused of genocideissued an advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is an illegal form of apartheid that must end immediately.

Enraged by the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel carried out by Gaza-based Hamas-led militants and seeking to fulfill their long-standing mission of conquering all of Palestine, Israeli settlers—who are protected and sometimes aided by IDF troops—have launched multiple deadly pogroms targeting Palestinian people and property in the occupied territories in recent years.

No Other Land focuses on Israeli efforts to ethnically cleanse Masafer Yatta, which is made up of 19 hamlets in the South Hebron Hills. It has been designated part of "Area C" by occupation authorities, meaning Israel has full military and civilian control there. The IDF designated Masafer Yatta as a military training zone where live-fire exercises take place, in what Israeli officials have admitted is a bid to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their villages.

In 2022, Israel's High Court of Justice upheld an order to expel Palestinians from eight Masafer Yatta hamlets, paving the way for forced expulsions. Israeli soldiers and settlers have repeatedly attacked the hamlets and their residents, as vividly shown in No Other Land.


Hamdan Ballal—the Academy Award-winning Palestinian filmmaker who co-directed the documentary No Other Land about the ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing of Masafer Yatta in the illegally occupied West Bank—was brutally attacked Monday by far-right settlers and then taken away by Israel Defense Forces troops, according to one of the film's Israeli co-directors.

"A group of settlers just lynched Hamdan Ballal, co-director of our film No Other Land," Yuval Abraham wrote on social media. "They beat him and he has injuries in his head and stomach, bleeding. Soldiers invaded the ambulance he called, and took him. No sign of him since."

Citing local residents, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretzreported that the soldiers who detained Ballal "were members of a rapid-response unit composed of settlers from nearby settlements," who "then handed him over to other soldiers."

Basel Adra, the film's other Palestinian co-director, posted, "I'm standing with Karam, Hamdan's 7-year-old son, near the blood of Hamdan's in his house, after settlers lynched him," adding that Ballal was "still missing after soldiers abducted him, injured and bleeding."

"This is how they erase Masafer Yatta," Adra added.

Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan posted video showing what he said was "the moment Israeli settlers launched a violent pogrom on the village of Susya in Hebron, injuring numerous residents and American activists" and Ballal.

Hassan said that "settlers raided homes, hurled stones, smashed windows and vehicles, and violently assaulted residents and solidarity activists," adding that "several people were injured" in the attack.

"When the ambulance arrived for Hamdan, Israeli soldiers stormed it and took him," he added. "There has been no sign of him since."

Israel has occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem since 1967, and today, more than 700,000 Israelis live in over 140 settlements there. Under international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention, both Israel's 58-year occupation of Palestine and its settlements are illegal. Last July, the International Court of Justice—where Israel stands accused of genocideissued an advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is an illegal form of apartheid that must end immediately.

Enraged by the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel carried out by Gaza-based Hamas-led militants and seeking to fulfill their long-standing mission of conquering all of Palestine, Israeli settlers—who are protected and sometimes aided by IDF troops—have launched multiple deadly pogroms targeting Palestinian people and property in the occupied territories in recent years.

No Other Land focuses on Israeli efforts to ethnically cleanse Masafer Yatta, which is made up of 19 hamlets in the South Hebron Hills. It has been designated part of "Area C" by occupation authorities, meaning Israel has full military and civilian control there. The IDF designated Masafer Yatta as a military training zone where live-fire exercises take place, in what Israeli officials have admitted is a bid to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their villages.

In 2022, Israel's High Court of Justice upheld an order to expel Palestinians from eight Masafer Yatta hamlets, paving the way for forced expulsions. Israeli soldiers and settlers have repeatedly attacked the hamlets and their residents, as vividly shown in No Other Land.

In one September 2021 attack, a mob of as many as 100 masked settlers invaded the village of Khirbat al-Mufkara, wounding 12 Palestinians including a 3-year-old child. Settler children have participated in the attacks.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, nearly 900 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since October 2023. Thousands more have been injured.

During a Monday press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter asked State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce about the attack on Ballal and wider settler violence in the West Bank.

"It's obvious... that we care very much about that and want it to end," Bruce said.

However, the Trump administration has been even more supportive of Israel than that of former President Joe Biden, who repeatedly affirmed his "unwavering support" for the key Mideast ally even as credible evidence of its genocide mounted. Both Biden and Trump have lavished Israel with billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic backing.
An Unconstitutional Rampage




Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next.


It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk.


Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Brett Wilkins


Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.














The Stark and Brutal Reality of Fascism in America Today and How and Why It Is Systematically Destroying the Country in Real Time As We Speak--With No End in Sight--Part 3

Substack

I don’t know what Columbia University is doing. I do know this: they bowed to the demands of the Trump administration and have helped unleash what I can only imagine as a torrent of forces designed to dismantle American higher education as we know it.

MAGA Republicans, and some conservatives in general, believe that American universities and colleges have been captured by the so-called radical left. That the place where I have spent nearly thirty years of my life is a cesspool of intolerance and “wokeism” (the latest catch word for white American angst). They want these places to look like they did in the early part of the 20th century, and they want knowledge production to reflect the world they long for, where people like me know our place and elite colleges and universities are bone white. (The real antisemites will soon rear their ugly heads once again.)

Lies fuel their efforts. And the administration at Columbia University knows this, or they willfully ignore the lies because they are afraid, or they simply agree with the basic aims of what the Trump administration is doing. No matter the reason the storm has swept into the hallowed halls of American higher education, and it is a Category 5.

We have seen this before, even as we experience the current efforts as wholly unprecedented. I was thinking about the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) by Arthur O. Lovejoy and John Dewey in 1915. It was a response, in part, to attempts to fire faculty, to define more clearly faculty shared governance, and standards of academic freedom. That effort would become even more important with the passage of the Espionage Act in 1917, the Sedition Act in 1918, and with the “red scare” that trampled American civil liberties. All of which was framed by nativist hatred as the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations embraced the idea of 100 percent Americanism.

In the full light of the past, we cannot separate what is happening at Columbia and the assault on American higher education from what has happened to Mahmoud Khalil, or the invocation of the Aliens Enemies Act to justify the deportation of two hundred Venezuelans, or the dismantling of the Department of Education, or the ongoing efforts to undo the social revolutions of the 1960s in pursuit of the idea that America must be for “white people only.”

Thinking about the AAUP led me back to a brief speech John Dewey, who taught at Columbia, wrote in 1939 for a celebration of his 80th birthday in New York entitled “Creative Democracy — The Task Before Us.” He opens by contrasting the circumstances under which the founders “gathered to take stock of conditions and to create the political structure of a self-governing society.” And he contrasts that beginning with the challenges the country now faced.

Dewey warned that “the crisis that one hundred and fifty years ago called out social and political inventiveness is with us in a form which puts a heavier demand on human creativeness. It is a challenge to do for the critical and complex conditions of today what the men of an earlier day did for simple conditions."

White Americans had come to take democracy for granted, believing that democracy itself did not require much other than participating in the political mechanisms that elected representatives. And so, as Dewey noted, “we have lived for a long time upon the heritage that came to us from the happy conjunction of men and events in an earlier day.” Americans act "as if our democracy were something that perpetuated itself automatically; as if our ancestors had succeeded in setting up a machine that solved the problem of perpetual motion in politics."

Democracy requires something more of us. It demands that we think of it as a way of life. That to embrace democracy involves taking up certain attitudes, developing a particular character and disposition that shapes our relations with others. We are NOT moved about by institutions as they are, but those institutions ought to reflect our own values and commitments.

The enemies of democracy can best be met by “the creation of personal attitudes in individual human beings; that we must get over our tendency to think that its defense can be found in any external means whatever, whether military or civil, if they are separated from individual attitudes so deep-seated as to constitute personal character.” We must become the kinds of people democracy requires. But our hatreds get in the way.

Here is a passage that I repeatedly return to:


Democracy is a way of life controlled by a working faith in the possibilities of human nature. Belief in the Common Man is a familiar article in the democratic creed. That belief is without basis and significance save as it means faith in the potentialities of human nature as that nature is exhibited in every human being irrespective of race, color, sex, birth and family, of material or cultural wealth. This faith may be enacted in statutes, but it is only on paper unless it is put in force in the attitudes which human beings display to one another in all the incidents and relations of daily life.

He goes on to say that,


To denounce Naziism for intolerance, cruelty and stimulation of hatred amounts to fostering insincerity if, in our personal relations to other persons, if, in our daily walk and conversation, we are moved by racial, color or other class prejudice; indeed, by anything save a generous belief in their possibilities as human beings, a belief which brings with it the need for providing conditions which will enable these capacities to reach fulfillment.

A democratic faith must not break under the weight of crass prejudices, racial and otherwise. Such views not only distort and disfigure the operations of institutions; they deform who we take ourselves to be.

Democracy as a way of life proceeds from the assumption that every human being no matter their race, color, gender, class position, etc. has the capacity for intelligent judgment if the proper conditions are provided. And, for Dewey, (remember, this is 1939) “Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of differences of opinion about religion or politics or business, as well as because of differences of race, color, wealth or degree of culture are treason to the democratic way of life. For everything which bars freedom and fullness of communication sets up barriers that divide human beings into sets and cliques, into antagonistic sects and factions, and thereby undermines the democratic way of life.”

James Baldwin wrote in “In Search of a Majority,” that “I conceive of my own life as a journey toward something I do not understand, which in the going toward, makes me better.” It is “in the going toward” that the power of the university – of a genuine liberal arts education – is felt. Old assumptions that narrow our vision are unsettled and our minds are, ideally, opened to the vast diversity of the world. The unknown comes to us not to make us afraid but to occasion an imaginative leap into a new way of being.

That imaginative leap allows us to see beyond ourselves and to reach for another. Here we come to understand, as Dewey wrote in 1939, that “for every way of life that fails in its democracy limits [its] contacts, the exchanges, the communications, the interactions by which experience is steadied [and] enlarged and enriched…. [T]he task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute.”

The assault on American higher education, to my mind, is an attack on this powerful and democratic insight. If we are to resist the undemocratic forces that are raging throughout the country, much more is required than the crass capitulation of Columbia University. More is demanded than the exercise of civility that hides monsters or the sentimentality that masks cruelty. True fight requires that we enter the battlefield, fortified by the values we cherish and our ongoing commitment to the power found “in the going toward” – a kind of vulnerability and imagination desperately needed in these baffling and cruel times.
 

Subscribe to A Native Son:
 
“We can be better people, a better country, if we dare to imagine…”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33706jy774o


Trump revoking protections for Cubans, Haitians and other migrants

2 days ago

by Christal Hayes
BBC News, Los Angeles


Migrants from Venezuela viewing a map of the US at a Welcome Center in El Paso, Texas in 2022.  Getty images

US President Donald Trump's administration has said it will revoke the temporary legal status of more than half a million migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Those migrants have been warned to leave the country before their permits and deportation shield are cancelled on 24 April, according to a notice posted by the federal government.

The 530,000 migrants were brought into the US under a Biden-era sponsorship process known as CHNV that was designed to open legal migration pathways. Trump suspended the programme once he took office.

It is unclear how many of these migrants have been able to secure another status in the interim that would allow them to stay in the US legally.

The programme was launched under Democratic President Joe Biden in 2022, first covering Venezuelans before it was expanded to other countries.

Judge in migrants deportations case says government lawyers 'disrespectful'

It allowed the migrants and their immediate family members to fly into the US if they had American sponsors and remain for two years under a temporary immigration status known as parole.

The Biden administration had argued that CHNV would help curb illegal crossings at the southern US border and allow for better vetting of those entering the country.

The Department of Homeland Security on Friday rebuked the prior administration and said the programme had failed in its goals.

The agency's statement said Biden officials had "granted them [migrants] opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers; forced career civil servants to promote the programs even when fraud was identified; and then blamed Republicans in Congress for the chaos that ensued and the crime that followed".

However, the 35-page notice in the Federal Register said some of those in the US under CHNV might be allowed to remain on a "case-by-case basis".

Karen Tumlin, founder of the Justice Action Center in California, said her organisation is set to challenge the move in court.

She told the BBC the decision hurt people "who did everything right that the US Government asked of them", adding that "their sponsors in the United States paid the fees, filled out the government paperwork, waited in line".

"To say 'oh, we're so sorry, even if you had 18 months left on your grant of permission to be here we're going to pull the rug out from under you in the next 30 days,' it's really quite surprising."

Trump has vowed to end birthright citizenship. Can he do it?


'Oopsie, too late' - US courts tested by Trump's latest deportations

Trump is also considering whether to cancel the temporary legal status of some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled to the US during the conflict with Russia.

CHNV helped a reported 213,000 Haitians enter the US amid deteriorating conditions in the Caribbean country.

More than 120,700 Venezuelans, 110,900 Cubans and over 93,000 Nicaraguans were also allowed into the US under the programme before Trump shut it down.

Last month, DHS announced it would in August end another immigration designation, temporary protected status (TPS), for 500,000 Haitians living in the US.

TPS was granted to nationals of designated countries facing unsafe conditions, such as armed conflict or environmental disasters.

DHS also halted TPS for Venezuelans in the US, although this is facing a legal challenge.

Since taking office in January, Trump's immigration policies have encountered a number of legal hurdles.

Haiti
Cuba
Nicaragua
Venezuela
US immigration
Donald Trump
United States
 
 
 
The genocide never stopped

Illusions of a ceasefire shatter as Israel announced the total ban on entry of goods and the cutting of electricity into Gaza followed by an air attack killing over 400 Palestinians in one night

gazangirl

March 19, 2025
Substack

In the last few days of Phase 1 of the “fragile ceasefire” which went into effect on January 19, Al Jazeera reported that at least six children died in one night in Gaza due to cold weather. Israel was required, under the terms of Phase 1 of the ceasefire, to allow into Gaza an agreed upon number of tents and mobile homes. However, like many of the conditions Israel accepted, it refused to implement them, largely restricting the entry of tents and almost all mobile homes into the Palestinian territory, exposing these children and others to premature death and harm.

The ceasefire did not mean an end to the genocide in Gaza
These developments beg the question of the impact of Phase 1 of the “ceasefire” (during which Israel continued to fire on and kill Palestinians) on the ongoing genocide. Phase 1 of the ceasefire led to a limited hostage exchange, the partial withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza and a surge of aid into the besieged territory (although nowhere near as much as was agreed upon). While this could only be described as a welcome development after 15 months of daily uninterrupted bombardment resulting in the pummeling of Gaza’s 2023 population of 2.3 million people with over 85,000 tonnes of explosives, it importantly, did not result in an end to the genocide.
Because genocide, legally speaking, concerns the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of a people in whole or in part, it is only when those conditions of life which have been intentionally put into place through the perpetrator’s conduct cease to exist that we can speak of an end to the genocide. However, what would be required to reverse the conditions which are antithetical to life in Gaza far supersedes what was agreed, much less actually implemented in the first phase.
Consider that Israel destroyed almost every single home in Gaza since October 2023. According to the latest figures by the UN, Israel destroyed or caused damage to 92% of the houses in the Gaza Strip (roughly 872,000 housing units). Entire cities have been replaced with rubble. The images of Jabalia and Beit Hanoun shock the conscience. Grass has been replaced with mounds of thick mud carved with Israeli tank marks. Cities with mounds of rubble. Absent the reconstruction of Gaza (which necessarily implies an end to the unlawful siege now in its 17th year), it is difficult to see how one could even begin to speak of an end to the genocidal conditions present in Gaza.

The genocide never stopped
 
Illusions of a ceasefire shatter as Israel announced the total ban on entry of goods and the cutting of electricity into Gaza followed by an air attack killing over 400 Palestinians in one nightIn the last few days of Phase 1 of the “fragile ceasefire” which went into effect on January 19, Al Jazeera reported that at least six children died in one night in Gaza due to cold weather. Israel was required, under the terms of Phase 1 of the ceasefire, to allow into Gaza an agreed upon number of tents and mobile homes. However, like many of the conditions Israel accepted, it refused to implement them, largely restricting the entry of tents and almost all mobile homes into the Palestinian territory, exposing these children and others to premature death and harm.

The ceasefire did not mean an end to the genocide in Gaza

These developments beg the question of the impact of Phase 1 of the “ceasefire” (during which Israel continued to fire on and kill Palestinians) on the ongoing genocide. Phase 1 of the ceasefire led to a limited hostage exchange, the partial withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza and a surge of aid into the besieged territory (although nowhere near as much as was agreed upon). While this could only be described as a welcome development after 15 months of daily uninterrupted bombardment resulting in the pummeling of Gaza’s 2023 population of 2.3 million people with over 85,000 tonnes of explosives, it importantly, did not result in an end to the genocide.

Because genocide, legally speaking, concerns the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of a people in whole or in part, it is only when those conditions of life which have been intentionally put into place through the perpetrator’s conduct cease to exist that we can speak of an end to the genocide. However, what would be required to reverse the conditions which are antithetical to life in Gaza far supersedes what was agreed, much less actually implemented in the first phase.

Consider that Israel destroyed almost every single home in Gaza since October 2023. According to the latest figures by the UN, Israel destroyed or caused damage to 92% of the houses in the Gaza Strip (roughly 872,000 housing units). Entire cities have been replaced with rubble. The images of Jabalia and Beit Hanoun shock the conscience. Grass has been replaced with mounds of thick mud carved with Israeli tank marks. Cities with mounds of rubble. Absent the reconstruction of Gaza (which necessarily implies an end to the unlawful siege now in its 17th year), it is difficult to see how one could even begin to speak of an end to the genocidal conditions present in Gaza. ...






The Stark and Brutal Reality of Fascism in America Today and How and Why It Is Systematically Destroying the Country in Real Time As We Speak--With No End in Sight--Part 2


The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days:

Trying to Cripple the Left: The president and his allies in Congress are targeting the financial, digital and legal machinery that powers the Democratic Party and much of the progressive political world.

F.T.C. Purge: President Trump fired the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, a rejection of the corporate regulator’s traditional independence that may clear the way for the administration’s agenda. Here’s what’s at stake.

Kennedy Center: A recording of Trump’s private remarks at a Kennedy Center board meeting shows that he mused about bestowing honors on dead celebrities and people from outside the arts.

Courts Dig for Truth: The litigation unleashed by Trump’s second term, combined with the president’s distortions and lies, is testing the judicial system’s practice of deferring to the executive branch’s determinations about what is true.

Bridging a Republican Divide: Vice President JD Vance made an explicit attempt to bridge warring factions within the Republican Party, arguing that the “tensions” between the populist and tech wings of the conservative movement could be overcome.

Education Department: The department was ordered by a federal judge to restore some federal grants that were terminated as part of the Trump administration’s purge of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Transgender Troops: A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military.

 
Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System

The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense.


President Trump’s retribution against law firms has shaken offices across Washington and beyond. Credit:  Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

by Michael S. Schmidt
March 12, 2025
New York Times


President Trump’s retribution campaign against law firms, legal experts and analysts say, is undermining a central tenet of the American legal system — the right to a lawyer to argue vigorously on one’s behalf.

With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials.

That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s actions, and open threats of more to come, have shaken law firms across Washington and beyond, leaving them looking at their client lists and wondering whether their representation could put them in the president’s cross hairs and endanger their business. Perkins Coie has acknowledged that in just the few days since Mr. Trump signed the executive order it “has already lost significant revenue” because of clients who have severed their relationship with the firm.


“This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,” said Samuel W. Buell, who is a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor.

A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Perkins Coie in an initial courtroom skirmish with the White House, temporarily barring a major portion of Mr. Trump’s executive order against the firm from taking effect.

“I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” said Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She added, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

Her reaction mirrored those of other legal experts who said the issues at stake go far beyond whether or not Mr. Trump will make life difficult for elite law firms and well-paid lawyers.

The experts say Mr. Trump’s actions could create a trickle-down effect in which those who find themselves under scrutiny from Mr. Trump and his administration struggle to find lawyers who are willing to defend them in the face of the vast powers of the federal government. Those facing scrutiny could be forced to turn to less skilled lawyers or firms that enjoy access or good ties to the White House, the experts say.

“If you’re a political enemy, you really need the best representation when the government comes after you for who you are,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “Chilling the lawyers who represent those people hurts the rule of law because when the government can’t be legally opposed, the law provides no protections to anyone and you start to live in an autocracy.”

Mr. Trump’s attack on Big Law comes as his administration has also gone after law schools, the American Bar Association and even lawyers inside the government itself who might question or hinder his agenda.


Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Credit:  Alex Kent/Getty Images

Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Washington threatened to stop hiring graduates from Georgetown Law School if its dean, William Treanor, failed to abolish the school’s diversity programs. Mr. Treanor all but dared the prosecutor, Ed Martin, to make good on his threats, saying that the First Amendment would forbid them.

Mr. Trump has often relied on pliant lawyers to do his bidding, and last month he fired the three top lawyers in the armed forces who are supposed to advise military leaders on the legality of various policies and operations. The lawyers, known as judge advocates general, were fired without reference to their professional performance, raising concerns that the administration wanted replacements who would be more amenable to Mr. Trump’s orders.

One of the first big tests of this new era arose late last week, setting off maneuvering that shows how big firms in Washington are rushing to adapt to the new challenges they face, according to interviews with people involved in or briefed on those discussions.

In his executive order targeting Perkins Coie, Mr. Trump was going after a firm that represented Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Trump singled out Perkins Coie’s involvement in a dossier complied during the 2016 campaign by a former British spy about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia.

Amid concerns in the legal community about a chilling effect, few, if any, major firms issued statements condemning Mr. Trump’s action. And amid that silence there was a question about whether any firm would take the even bigger step of agreeing to represent Perkins Coie in its effort to challenge Mr. Trump’s executive order in court.

Perkins Coie reached out to Derek L. Shaffer, a lawyer at the firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr. Shaffer had a long history of bringing civil actions against federal and state governments, and had argued before the Supreme Court three times. Perkins Coie wanted to see if he could take on the firm as a client and quickly go to court to file a suit against the Trump administration to stop the executive order.

Convincing Mr. Shaffer to take the case would come with a major potential bonus: close links to Mr. Trump and his allies.

Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel represent Elon Musk and provide ethics advice to the Trump Organization. The firm has also represented Mayor Eric Adams of New York as the Trump Justice Department has moved swiftly to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams, a Democrat.

But Perkins Coie was rebuffed. Quinn Emanuel decided against taking the case. Its top leaders concluded that this was not an issue they wanted to jump into at this stage as they continue to build themselves into a power center in Mr. Trump’s Washington.

Other major law firms expressed concerns that if they represented Perkins Coie, they, too, could face Mr. Trump’s ire. Leaders of top firms asked: How would their own clients react if Mr. Trump cut off their access to the government?

In response, the elite Washington firm Williams and Connolly decided it would take on Perkins Coie as a client.

It’s unclear why Williams and Connolly was willing to take a risk that other firms were not. But lawyers at Williams and Connolly have long taken pride in their role as an adversary and check against the government, including by highlighting the firm’s role in protecting high-profile defendants against prosecutorial misconduct. The firm was founded by the well-known defense lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, who built his career on vigorously representing an array of clients before the government, including those out of political favor.

On Tuesday, Williams and Connolly, on behalf of Perkins Coie, filed suit against the Trump administration in Washington. That suit led to Judge Howell’s ruling on Wednesday imposing a temporary restraining order to block for now the section of Mr. Trump’s executive order that essentially barred Perkins Coie from dealing with federal officials and prevented it from entering government buildings. She said the executive order was most likely unconstitutional.

Other law firms have been discussing whether to file a joint amicus brief on behalf of Perkins Coie. While some major firms have signaled they are willing to sign onto it, others have said they are reluctant. On Wednesday, 21 state attorneys general filed their own amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie.

Covington & Burling, which had the security clearance stripped from a lawyer at the firm who was assisting Mr. Smith, has taken a different approach from that of Perkins Coie.

Covington has declined to fight Mr. Trump in court. Instead, the firm, concerned about a perception among its clients that it was falling out of favor with Mr. Trump, has begun discussions with other prominent law firms with fewer ties to Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies about becoming the face of some of their most important cases before the Justice Department.

But beyond what Mr. Trump has done to law firms, the political appointees he has placed at departments, agencies and commissions are taking on the legal profession in other ways.

One of Mr. Trump’s political appointees has ordered government officials under him to not renew their memberships to the American Bar Association, hold a position with the association or attend its events.


Mr. Trump said that he would strip security clearances from any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against him. Credit:  Doug Mills/The New York Times

At the Justice Department, the attorney general has sent a letter to the American Bar Association questioning its diversity practices.

And last week, at an annual conference on white-collar crime for the association, a slew of top officials from the Justice Department — who regularly attend the event — canceled at the last minute. That meant that a conference designed to bring together the industry about an important topic was devoid of senior department officials in charge of enforcing the law.

Abbie VanSickle and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.

More about Michael S. Schmidt

A version of this article appears in print on March 14, 2025, Section A, Page 22 of the New York edition with the headline: Out for Revenge, Trump Chills Law Firms and the People They Defend. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper

See more on: U.S. Politics, Donald Trump, Hillary Rodham Clinton





https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/24/trump-judges-impeachment-law-doge


Donald Trump
‘The authoritarian playbook’: Trump targets judges, lawyers … and law itself

Attacks on key US institutions seek to stifle dissent, exact revenge and subordinate them to the president, experts say

Never miss global breaking news. Download our free app to keep up with key stories in real time.

Peter Stone

Mon 24 Mar 2025 07.00 EDT

As Donald Trump aggressively seeks revenge against multiple foes in the US, he’s waging a vendetta using executive orders and social media against judges, law firms, prosecutors, the press and other vital American institutions to stifle dissent and exact retribution.

Legal scholars say the president’s menacing attacks, some of which Trump’s biggest campaign backer, the billionaire Elon Musk, has echoed, are aimed at silencing critics of his radical agenda and undercut the rule of law in authoritarian ways that expand his own powers.

“Trump’s moves are from the authoritarian playbook,” said the Harvard law school lecturer and retired Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner. “You need to delegitimize institutions that could be critics. Trump is seeking to use the power of the presidency to delegitimize institutions including universities, law firms, judges and others. It’s the opposite of American democracy.”

In a stunning move on Tuesday, Trump railed that a top Washington DC judge ought to be impeached for ruling to halt the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans allegedly including gang members, sparking the chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, hours later to issue a strong statement against calls to impeach judges for their rulings.



Trump could reshape judiciary with 300 judge appointments, analysis shows

Read more

Legal scholars sharply criticize other attacks by Trump and the Maga world on judges who have issued rulings against executive orders or Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge), with the goal of weakening the judicial branch to boost Trump’s powers.

Fears about Trump’s war on his critics rose this month as the president issued executive orders penalizing three big law firms including Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. Critics say Trump’s sanctions against the firms were sparked by their clients, respectively ex-special counsel Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump for trying to subvert his 2020 election loss, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which hired the firm that helped pay for a dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign.

Those executive orders, which included barring some firms from entering federal buildings, interacting with agencies and taking away security clearances from some lawyers, were widely seen as punitive measures to hurt them financially.

District Judge Beryl Howell on 12 March blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of its order against Perkins Coie, which she stated “runs head-on into the wall of first amendment protections”.

The third law firm Trump targeted with an executive order was Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, whose former partner Mark Pomerantz later tried to build a criminal case against Trump when he worked at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. But Trump’s executive order was reversed on 19 March after the firm agreed to provide $40m in pro bono services to support administration priorities.

Legal scholars have also denounced justice department firings or demotions of some two dozen lawyers who worked on cases against Trump allies convicted for attacking the Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory.

In a stark show of vindictiveness and historical revisionism about his role inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol and baseless claims that his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden was rigged, Trump addressed a justice department gathering on 14 March and proclaimed he intended to end the “weaponization” of the law against him.

In an angry and rambling talk, Trump singled out among others Jack Smith, to whom Covington provided pro bono help, and the former Perkins lawyer Marc Elias, a key figure in fighting Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

Trump blasted them and others who had investigated him as “bad people, really bad people … They tried to turn America into a corrupt communist and third-world country, but in the end, the thugs failed and the truth won.”

The sheer vindictiveness … has disrupted lives, inflicted costs and even raised security concerns

Daniel Richman

Shortly after Trump spoke, the Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who taught constitutional law for two decades, gave a sharp rebuttal at a rally outside the justice department. “No other president in American history has stood in the Department of Justice to proclaim an agenda of criminal prosecution and retaliation against his political foes,” Raskin said.

Legal experts say Trump’s attacks on lawyers and judges are dangerous.

“The sheer vindictiveness with which Trump and his allies have targeted lawyers – both in government service and in private practice – and judges has disrupted lives, inflicted costs and even raised security concerns,” said Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor and former federal prosecutor.

“I’m sure some are intimidated, and that certainly seems the intent. Others will cozy up to him. But the more this occurs – and I don’t imagine it will stop – the more it will look like Trump’s problem is less with those who practice law and more with law itself. Even allies who cheer his tactics may soon wonder how they would fare in a lawless world.”

Other legal scholars express grave concerns with Trump’s widening attacks on law firms, judges and other institutions that have criticized his policies and power grabs.



Trump at his hush-money trial with his lawyers Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove, right. Blanche is now deputy attorney general and Bove is principal associate deputy attorney general. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/AP

“Trump’s sanctions against Covington and Perkins serve two purposes. In the immediate term, he gets revenge against two firms that have offended him,” said NYU law professor Stephen Gillers.

Gillers stressed that these orders also “warn other law firms that they face the same punishment if they cross Trump by representing plaintiffs challenging his executive orders. In fact, the executive orders should be called by their rightful name: vendettas.”

Gillers added that the “only remaining institutional threat to Trump’s quest for total power is the judiciary … Lawyers are the gatekeepers for access to judicial power. We see a double-barreled strategy: attack the judges who criticize or rule against Trump as a warning to other judges, and attack law firms as a warning to other law firms that might take Trump to court.”

The surge in Trump administration attacks on judges has been fueled by multiple court rulings that have delayed or scuttled Trump’s executive orders and Musk’s Doge operation to shrink the federal government with scant regard for congressional and judicial powers.

For instance, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, last week wrote on X: “Under the precedents now being established by radical rogue judges, a district court in Hawaii could enjoin troop movements in Iraq. Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election.”

Judges who have ruled against Trump have witnessed an uptick in threats. A bomb threat was even made in March against a sister of the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett after she joined three liberal justices and Chief Justice Roberts in a ruling that went against Trump.

Trump’s rightwing allies in Congress have jumped into the legal fray with calls to impeach certain judges who have ruled against the administration and some of Doge’s radical cost-cutting moves.

After the New York district judge Paul Engelmayer blocked Doge on 8 February from gaining access to millions of sensitive and personal treasury records, Musk baselessly accused him of being a “corrupt judge protecting corruption” on X, the social media site he owns where he has about 200 million followers.

“He needs to be impeached NOW!” Musk said on 9 February.

With Musk nearby in the Oval Office last month, Trump echoed these attacks by the world’s richest man, who donated close to $300m to his campaign:

“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that,’ so maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said.

When you flood the zone with scores of executive orders … no one should be surprised that they’re not withstanding judicial scrutiny

John Jones

To bolster those charges, Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican congressman, filed an impeachment resolution against the judge, whose ruling came after more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit arguing Doge could not legally access treasury records with personal details of millions of Americans.

Former federal judges and scholars say that Trump and Musk have pushed the legal envelope in ways that are unprecedented in the US.

“When you flood the zone with scores of executive orders, many of which were clearly based on questionable legal grounds, no one should be surprised that they’re not withstanding judicial scrutiny,” said John Jones, an ex-federal judge who is now president of Dickinson College.

“An additional problem the administration has is that it’s losing credibility with the courts by continually making disingenuous arguments in support of these orders.”

Other critics voice similar concerns.

“Trump’s actions aimed at the role of lawyers and the courts appear to be part of a battle to reduce the judicial branch to being subordinate to the president,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission who now teaches law at American University. “If Trump is able to punish lawyers who oppose him and ignore the courts, he will be only steps away from becoming the king he seems to want to be.”

On another front where Trump is eager to snuff out criticism and dissent, the president escalated his attacks on the media in his recent justice department speech by asserting without evidence that some major reporting outlets are “illegal” and “corrupt”.

“These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative,” Trump said, lashing out at CNN and MSNBC as corrupt.

Trump added in conspiratorial fashion: “It has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really changing law, and it just cannot be legal.”

Trump’s widening attacks on the press, the courts, law firms and other American institutions damage the rule of law in Raskin’s eyes.

“Trump is attacking any source of potential institutional opposition,” Raskin said. “Anyone who offers any kind of resistance is a target of Trump’s. We’re seeing an explosion of Trump’s incorrigible lawlessness.”

Explore more on these topics:

Donald Trump
US justice system
Law (US)
US politics
Trump administration
news

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/19/nx-s1-5323890/experts-say-trumps-targeting-of-law-firms-is-unprecedented

Law
 
Experts say Trump's targeting of law firms is unprecedented

Heard on All Things Considered

by Ryan Lucas
March 19, 2025
NPR


4-Minute Listen

Transcript

President Trump has signed three orders punishing law firms that have represented people or causes unpopular with the president.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

President Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about seeking vengeance against his political enemies. Since his return to office, he has followed through on that threat. That includes punishing law firms that have represented people or causes unpopular with the president. NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas reports.

RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: In recent weeks, President Trump has used the power of the presidency to take aim at three prominent big law firms. First, Trump took executive action to suspend security clearances for certain attorneys at the firm of Covington & Burling. Days later, he took a much bigger swing at another firm, Perkins Coie, suspending all security clearances held by its employees, prohibiting government contractors from retaining the firm and barring its attorneys access to government officials and buildings. A few days later, he followed up with yet another executive order, this time against the New York-based law firm of Paul Weiss.

TIMOTHY ZICK: I'm not familiar with anything like this coming out of any White House historically.

LUCAS: Timothy Zick is a professor at William & Mary Law School.

ZICK: This is an effort to target and retaliate against law firms that were doing lawful work, advocacy on behalf of their clients.

LUCAS: The reason for Trump's animus differs with each firm. Covington & Burling attorneys represent former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who led the federal investigations of Trump. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and former attorneys there had a hand in the creation of the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. And with the third law firm, Paul Weiss, one of its former attorneys had worked cases against Trump. Speaking with Fox News earlier this month, the president suggested there would be more to come.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have a lot of law firms that we're going to be going after because they were very dishonest people. They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point.

LUCAS: Presidents generally have broad authority on national security matters and in granting and revoking security clearances. But two of the law firm orders also implicate free speech, due process and choice of counsel. Whatever Trump's stated reason may be in each instance, University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein says the president's goal in going after law firms appears clear.

CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: I think if you look at the purpose of the executive orders, it's to intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go against Donald Trump and the current administration.

LUCAS: Finkelstein says targeting law firms is part and parcel of a broader assault on the legal community, including the courts. Some federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration have faced online threats and calls for impeachment. On Tuesday, Trump himself lashed out on social media at a judge handling an immigration-related case and said, in all caps, the judge should be impeached. Again, Finkelstein.

FINKELSTEIN: Now they're going after the lawyers and saying, you know, you should be intimidated from even bringing suits that oppose the government in the first place. It's a clear shot across the bow with regard to any law firms that represent clients who want to challenge government action.

LUCAS: In the case of Perkins Coie, the firm is pushing back. It filed a lawsuit last week challenging the president's order. A day later, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block enforcement of the order, saying it likely violates the First, Fifth and Sixth amendments. Despite that ruling, Trump followed up just days later with his new executive order targeting a third big law firm. One of the main questions now is what, if anything, will the legal community do to defend what experts say are bedrock principles of the American legal system? Zick says it's important that law firms present a united front.

ZICK: There should be significant pushback against this sort of executive action because, you know, your firm could be next. Or individual lawyers could be subjected to this sort of targeting and retaliation.

LUCAS: Two sources tell NPR there's an effort underway among top lawyers at several big law firms to file a brief in the Perkins case supporting the firm and defending the rule of law. But some law firms are hesitant to sign on, worried about potentially being Trump's next target.

Ryan Lucas, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-us-lawyers-decry-trump-orders-their-law-firms-stay-silent-2025-03-18/

Trump's attacks on law firms alarm lawyers but most firms stay silent

by Mike Scarcella, David Thomas and Sara Merken
March 18, 2025
Updated 6 days ago



U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 7, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's targeting of major law firms over their diversity policies and political clients has earned condemnation from law professors, bar associations and a federal judge - but not, so far, from other law firms.

Instead, the public reaction from large corporate firms has come mainly from a few of their lawyers, via LinkedIn posts and an online effort involving junior lawyers at Skadden and other firms to encourage a larger institutional response.

Partners at top firms who have denounced Trump's actions on social media have stressed that they are not speaking for their employers. A partner at Polsinelli, who criticized Trump's orders targeting other law firms on LinkedIn, deleted a post accusing the government of "trying to destroy the rule of law and instill fear" after she was contacted by Reuters on Monday.

Reuters contacted 30 of the largest U.S. firms, including some representing clients suing the Trump administration over other matters, for their response to recent government actions against law firms. All either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.


An early sign emerged on Tuesday that Munger Tolles & Olson may be organizing other law firms to file a friend-of-the-court brief challenging an executive order Trump issued against Perkins Coie. A legal executive at GE Healthcare, Mara Senn, said in a LinkedIn post that the firm would be submitting the brief next month and encouraged others to sign on.

Senn, GE Healthcare and lawyers at Munger did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

No major law firm that was not directly targeted by Trump has spoken publicly against the president's actions other than Williams & Connolly, which is representing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit challenging the White House executive order.


Trump issued his latest law firm executive order on Friday against Paul Weiss, a litigation and dealmaking powerhouse whose 1,000-plus lawyers advise some of the country's largest financial and technology companies.


On Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 large firms demanding extensive details about their lawyers' demographics in a broad crackdown on legal industry diversity efforts.

The Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie orders suspended their lawyers' security clearances and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. Trump also last month suspended security clearances of two lawyers at Covington & Burling, in each case citing the firms' past work for his political or legal opponents.
MARSHALING SUPPORT

Twenty U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed a court brief backing Perkins Coie last week, calling Trump's executive order "menacing" and a threat to the practice of law across the country. The American Bar Association and other professional groups have also issued statements backing the targeted firms.


Organized efforts to mount a joint response by large law firms have yet to yield concrete results, however.

As of Tuesday afternoon, an open letter urging major firms "to defend their colleagues and the legal profession" from Trump's actions had 444 signatories who identified themselves as associates at dozens of firms. The letter did not name the lawyers, only their firms.

Associates at three of the firms told Reuters they were looking for more ways to support those targeted by Trump, such as advocating for their firms to sign onto a legal brief backing Perkins Coie's lawsuit.

"It can't stop with saying, largely anonymously, someone should really do something about this," said Rachel Cohen, a banking associate at Skadden who was an early organizer of the letter.

Cohen said she was speaking only for herself. A spokesperson for Skadden did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bar has been caught off guard by how quickly Trump has moved "to dismantle the rule of law and American-style checks and balances in this country," said Daniel McCuaig, an antitrust litigator at plaintiffs law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

McCuaig, speaking on his own behalf, said lawyers especially "need to start raising their voices now to turn this tide."

McCuaig's firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 
AVOIDING RISK

Legal experts said concerns about the reaction of their corporate clients and potential retribution from the administration are helping to mute law firms' response to the president's actions so far.

"Most lawyers are risk averse. They are not naturally brave," said Leslie Levin, a legal ethics scholar at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "You need to be brave to speak out under the present circumstances."

Perkins Coie's lawsuit said at least seven of its clients, including a major government contractor, have already withdrawn legal work because of Trump's executive order or were considering doing so, costing the firm "significant revenue."

A federal judge last week granted Perkins Coie's request to temporarily block parts of the order against it, saying the legal industry was "watching in horror" at what the law firm was experiencing.

Reporting by David Thomas in Chicago, Mike Scarcella in Washington and Sara Merken in New York; Editing by David Bario and Richard Chang

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

David Thomas reports on the business of law, including law firm strategy, hiring, mergers and litigation. He is based out of Chicago. He can be reached at d.thomas@thomsonreuters.com and on Twitter @DaveThomas5150.

Sara Merken reports on the business of law, including legal innovation and law firms in New York and nationally.