Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

How transactional power, donor access, and institutional silence erode the rule of law

Opinion

A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.


I bemoan the bygone days when Mr. Smith went to Washington to fight corruption. Oh wait, Mr. Jack Smith did go to Washington to fight corruption.

Outrage also bubbles up from recent reports that well-heeled donors are being given the lucrative opportunity of gaining access to the President for a minimum of $1 million in tax-deductible donations to Freedom250, a new limited liability company involved in planning the celebrations for the nation’s 250th birthday. Although Freedom250 is a nonprofit subsidiary of the National Park Foundation, it appears to be just another avenue for gaining favor with the President. Given the President’s track record, there are and will likely be many more such avenues.

And if that weren’t enough, in a remarkable manifestation of larcenous intent, President Trump has also filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department for their alleged failure to protect his tax records, which, if memory serves, should have been disclosed to the American public after he was first elected to the presidency. As Senators Wyden and Warren wrote in a letter asking whether the Attorney General and Treasury Secretary would defend the interests of the American taxpayers, the lawsuit hit a new low as a “shameless and transparent act of corruption.”

As if the blatant conflicts of interest implicit in the President’s conduct are not alarming enough, his transactional approach to the granting of pardons boggles the mind. It was noted by a Senior Fellow of The American Enterprise Institute that this “pardon-lobbying industry” was “profitable for Trump insiders, or those who can pose as Trump insiders. Having abandoned the prior process for considering pardons, the President apparently doles them out to those who flatter and/or enrich him, which includes criminals and fraudsters who donate millions of dollars to pro-Trump committees. Is it a coincidence that pardons are also granted to those involved in the crypto industry in which the President’s family is invested? This approach to governing defines Trump’s administration and is antithetical to the rule of law.

To add to the outrage, President Trump is reported to have previously tried and failed to persuade New York Senator Charles Schumer to assist in the renaming of Pennsylvania Station and Dulles International Airport after him in exchange for releasing the funds of the Gateway Tunnel Project. If that was a joke, it is not amusing. While the President’s attempt to condition the funding on his own personal desires failed, at least for now, I believe that many of my former judicial colleagues would take extremely seriously what may reasonably be characterized as an instance of attempted extortion. If a litigant had been brought before me for such flagrant violations, sanctions would have surely been imposed to the full extent of the law.

Unfortunately, we have become inured to this administration’s reliance on the “unitary executive theory” to permit the President to do just about anything he wants without any pushback. While Trump fatigue is real, we must continue to challenge every outrageous emanation coming from the White House. I applaud the many federal district court judges who continue to apply the rule of law and resist unconstitutional and unconscionable governmental conduct.

The responsibility lies, however, with all branches of government and the public they serve. The judiciary alone cannot preserve the rule of law.

Hon. Barbara Jaffe is a retired Justice of the New York State Supreme Court and volunteer for Lawyers Defending Democracy.


Read More

The exterior of a home.

While en route to surrender his Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee rode past Appomattox Courthouse in rural Virginia.

visionsofmaine / Getty Images

The Civil War Never Really Ended, But an American Union Could Finally Help America Truly Heal

In previous essays, I argued that the United States should seriously consider a new governing structure — an “American Union” — in which red and blue America peacefully separate into two sovereign nations while preserving a common military alliance, shared currency, and freedom of movement, with each new nation having its own constitution reflecting its own political consensus.

Simply put, the United States is too politically, culturally, and geographically divided to function effectively under the existing highly centralized, winner-take-all system in which every election determines how more than 330 million people must live.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Constitution of the United States

A look at America's growing crisis of trust, rising inequality, technology's impact, and how founding principles can help renew democracy.

Tetra Images / Getty Images

People Are Hurting: The U.S. Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles

There are many ways in which our country is currently struggling, both from a government perspective and from the people's perspective. There is no shortage of articles or studies detailing the ways in which the country and its leaders are failing us.

A recent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times discussed the report of the State of the Nation Project—written by a bipartisan group of experts—that assessed the state of our country on 31 measures. Bottom line, it found that too many people do not feel good about their lives, about other people, or our institutions. This is a nationwide phenomenon; the worst performers may be red states in the South, but liberal states in the North and West have the same problems. And it's not a function of prosperous versus less-prosperous states.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Don’t Get Why They’ve Lost Most Working Class Voters

Graham Platner, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event hosted by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in Orono, Maine, on May 24, 2026.

Democrats Don’t Get Why They’ve Lost Most Working Class Voters

Since 2016, when Donald Trump shattered the Democrats’ blue wall by winning working-class voters across the Midwest, a cottage industry has sprung up on the left dedicated to answering a single question: How can Democrats win back the working class?

The answers come in different forms. Sometimes it is veteran Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – barnstorming red districts, railing against oligarchy and corporate greed.

Keep ReadingShow less
​The Edmund Pettus Bridge, in Selma, Alabama, was the scene of violent clashes as Martin Luther King led a march from Selma to Montgomery.

Following the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais ruling, MBA students explore Selma's civil rights history and the urgent lessons of democratic leadership.

Getty Images, Kirkikis

What We Owe Democracy

The day before we flew to Alabama to lead a civil rights and leadership trek with 30 MBA students, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a case we were watching closely in light of our upcoming trip. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito substantially narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling that states may draw congressional district lines on partisan grounds even when the practical effect, and many argue the intention, is to dilute Black voting power. Justice Kagan, in dissent, called it the completion of the majority’s “demolition” of the Act.

It was with this backdrop that our students stood with us on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama—the very place that birthed the Voting Rights Act, where the courageous actions of a small group of people helped, as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. so famously put it, “bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice.”

Keep ReadingShow less