{"id":132874,"date":"2025-09-08T15:04:34","date_gmt":"2025-09-08T23:04:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/09\/08\/everything-everywhere-all-at-once-trump-edition\/"},"modified":"2025-09-08T15:04:34","modified_gmt":"2025-09-08T23:04:34","slug":"everything-everywhere-all-at-once-trump-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/09\/08\/everything-everywhere-all-at-once-trump-edition\/","title":{"rendered":"Everything Everywhere All At Once (Trump Edition)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Think for a minute about coercion.<\/p>\n

If another country changes its trade policies in a way that hurts the United States, then the United States \u2014 probably through Congressional action \u2014 should be able to respond by changing the United States\u2019 trade policy. Perhaps even the president, without Congressional approval, should be allowed to change trade policy, although that\u2019s less clear. But if another country does something completely unrelated to trade \u2014 say, for example, prosecuting a former government official for corruption \u2014 should the president be permitted to respond by changing U.S. trade policy?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what President Donald Trump has done. Brazil is prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro for crimes related to an alleged coup. Trump is unhappy with this, so he\u2019s unilaterally imposed a 50% tariff on goods imported from Brazil.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Brazil\u2019s supposed offense has nothing to do with trade policy, but Trump thinks he can use U.S. trade policy as a method of coercion.<\/p>\n

If Trump is right, that gives the president unrestrained power to coerce other countries to do whatever the president wants. Trump doesn\u2019t like the prime minister of Nowhereistan? A gazillion percent tariffs until the country changes prime ministers! Why not? The president can coerce any foreign country to do anything.<\/p>\n

Change your focus. Instead of thinking about foreign countries, think about American states. State laws govern state crimes and punishments. But Trump recently decided that he doesn\u2019t like cashless bail (which is kind of odd, since he has, of course, repeatedly been released on cashless bail). Although the federal government has no power over how states administer bail, Trump has threatened to cut off federal funds from states that don\u2019t eliminate cashless bail. Trump\u2019s executive order doesn\u2019t specify which federal funds will be cut off from the states. Presumably, Trump will want to exercise maximum coercion over the states \u2014 You allow cashless bail? Eliminate all federal funding to the state! No more federal highway money! No more federal welfare programs! \u2014 while states will insist that only funds related to the bail system (or some such thing) could be cut off.<\/p>\n

Trump is again looking for a wide-ranging power to coerce: If the states don\u2019t do what he likes \u2014 change the laws governing abortion!\u00a0 change the laws governing gun control! \u2014 the federal government has the right to cut off all federal funds.<\/p>\n

So much for states\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n

Change your focus. Think about universities. If a university is unlawfully discriminating against some group \u2014 diversity programs are illegally discriminating against white kids; the university is illegally permitting antisemitism to go unchecked \u2014 then of course the federal government should be able to cut off funds relating to the illegal discrimination: no more money for diversity initiatives, for example.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

But does the federal government really wield a blunderbuss in this situation? The federal government doesn\u2019t like what a university is doing with its diversity initiatives, so the federal government is allowed to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for, say, medical research?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what universities are facing, and it feels like coercion.<\/p>\n

How about law firms? The federal government believes that law firms are engaged in vexatious litigation that hurts the national interest. Maybe the federal government has some interest in that. Maybe the government should litigate the cases, win, and ask the court to impose sanctions on the offending law firm. But can the government really forbid a law firm\u2019s litigators from appearing in court and refuse to approve mergers proposed by a firm\u2019s corporate clients to coerce the firm to abandon disfavored representations?<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s federal government is trying to coerce the world: foreign governments, state governments, universities, and law firms. What comes next?<\/p>\n

Oh! If the federal government doesn\u2019t approve of an individual, the federal government can launch an investigation of that person. Just ask New York Attorney General Letitia James, or Gen. Mark Milley, or special counsel Jack Smith, or the rest of \u2019em.\u00a0 The cost of defending against a federal investigation, whether or not any charges ultimately result, imposes quite a financial burden.\u00a0 That\u2019s pretty damn coercive.<\/p>\n

Could it get any worse?<\/p>\n

You betcha.<\/p>\n

President Trump decided that 11 Venezuelans might be trafficking drugs, so he ordered the military to blow up the boat they were on.\u00a0 The U.S. could of course have stopped the boat and arrested the people on board, but that threatens mere time in prison.\u00a0 Blowing people to smithereens, before any charges are filed, is much more coercive.<\/p>\n

Could Trump order similar strikes against people he deems to be terrorists?\u00a0 People he deems to be drug traffickers within the United States?\u00a0 Anyone else?<\/p>\n

I understand that the federal government is powerful, and the president is a powerful guy.\u00a0 But does the president have, and do we really want him to have, unfettered power to coerce anybody, anywhere, for any reason at all?<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>inhouse@abovethelaw.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Everything Everywhere All At Once (Trump Edition)<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Think for a minute about coercion.<\/p>\n

If another country changes its trade policies in a way that hurts the United States, then the United States \u2014 probably through Congressional action \u2014 should be able to respond by changing the United States\u2019 trade policy. Perhaps even the president, without Congressional approval, should be allowed to change trade policy, although that\u2019s less clear. But if another country does something completely unrelated to trade \u2014 say, for example, prosecuting a former government official for corruption \u2014 should the president be permitted to respond by changing U.S. trade policy?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what President Donald Trump has done. Brazil is prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro for crimes related to an alleged coup. Trump is unhappy with this, so he\u2019s unilaterally imposed a 50% tariff on goods imported from Brazil.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Brazil\u2019s supposed offense has nothing to do with trade policy, but Trump thinks he can use U.S. trade policy as a method of coercion.<\/p>\n

If Trump is right, that gives the president unrestrained power to coerce other countries to do whatever the president wants. Trump doesn\u2019t like the prime minister of Nowhereistan? A gazillion percent tariffs until the country changes prime ministers! Why not? The president can coerce any foreign country to do anything.<\/p>\n

Change your focus. Instead of thinking about foreign countries, think about American states. State laws govern state crimes and punishments. But Trump recently decided that he doesn\u2019t like cashless bail (which is kind of odd, since he has, of course, repeatedly been released on cashless bail). Although the federal government has no power over how states administer bail, Trump has threatened to cut off federal funds from states that don\u2019t eliminate cashless bail. Trump\u2019s executive order doesn\u2019t specify which federal funds will be cut off from the states. Presumably, Trump will want to exercise maximum coercion over the states \u2014 You allow cashless bail? Eliminate all federal funding to the state! No more federal highway money! No more federal welfare programs! \u2014 while states will insist that only funds related to the bail system (or some such thing) could be cut off.<\/p>\n

Trump is again looking for a wide-ranging power to coerce: If the states don\u2019t do what he likes \u2014 change the laws governing abortion!\u00a0 change the laws governing gun control! \u2014 the federal government has the right to cut off all federal funds.<\/p>\n

So much for states\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n

Change your focus. Think about universities. If a university is unlawfully discriminating against some group \u2014 diversity programs are illegally discriminating against white kids; the university is illegally permitting antisemitism to go unchecked \u2014 then of course the federal government should be able to cut off funds relating to the illegal discrimination: no more money for diversity initiatives, for example.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

But does the federal government really wield a blunderbuss in this situation? The federal government doesn\u2019t like what a university is doing with its diversity initiatives, so the federal government is allowed to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for, say, medical research?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what universities are facing, and it feels like coercion.<\/p>\n

How about law firms? The federal government believes that law firms are engaged in vexatious litigation that hurts the national interest. Maybe the federal government has some interest in that. Maybe the government should litigate the cases, win, and ask the court to impose sanctions on the offending law firm. But can the government really forbid a law firm\u2019s litigators from appearing in court and refuse to approve mergers proposed by a firm\u2019s corporate clients to coerce the firm to abandon disfavored representations?<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s federal government is trying to coerce the world: foreign governments, state governments, universities, and law firms. What comes next?<\/p>\n

Oh! If the federal government doesn\u2019t approve of an individual, the federal government can launch an investigation of that person. Just ask New York Attorney General Letitia James, or Gen. Mark Milley, or special counsel Jack Smith, or the rest of \u2019em.\u00a0 The cost of defending against a federal investigation, whether or not any charges ultimately result, imposes quite a financial burden.\u00a0 That\u2019s pretty damn coercive.<\/p>\n

Could it get any worse?<\/p>\n

You betcha.<\/p>\n

President Trump decided that 11 Venezuelans might be trafficking drugs, so he ordered the military to blow up the boat they were on.\u00a0 The U.S. could of course have stopped the boat and arrested the people on board, but that threatens mere time in prison.\u00a0 Blowing people to smithereens, before any charges are filed, is much more coercive.<\/p>\n

Could Trump order similar strikes against people he deems to be terrorists?\u00a0 People he deems to be drug traffickers within the United States?\u00a0 Anyone else?<\/p>\n

I understand that the federal government is powerful, and the president is a powerful guy.\u00a0 But does the president have, and do we really want him to have, unfettered power to coerce anybody, anywhere, for any reason at all?<\/p>\n

\n

Mark\u00a0Herrmann\u00a0spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Curmudgeon\u2019s Guide to Practicing Law<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links). You can reach him by email at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>inhouse@abovethelaw.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Everything Everywhere All At Once (Trump Edition)<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images) Think for a minute about coercion. If another country changes its trade policies in a way that hurts the United States, then the United States \u2014 probably through Congressional action \u2014 should be able to respond by changing the United States\u2019 trade policy. Perhaps even the president, without Congressional approval, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":132875,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/donald-trump-GettyImages-1152627372-Q4EqKv.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132874","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132874\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}