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

Capitol building in Washington, DC

Government reform

Getty Images

Why One Young Engineer Rejects the Two‑Party Binary

When Joshua Summers was in elementary school, his dad would come to class to perform science experiments. One time, they did an experiment to show how lightning bugs lit up.

“That was pretty cool,” he says. There was never one moment that drew him to science, but it may have helped that his mother was a nurse and his father was a mathematician.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silhouetted People with American Flag Neon Sign

An examination of how gun rights, taxes, business regulation & public health all reflect the same core principle: rights come with responsibilities to society.

Joseph Sohm/Getty Images

With Rights Come Responsibilities - That's the American Way

People on the Right/MAGA are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights. Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership, running a business, or restrictions on movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen. Yes, we have rights. But with rights come responsibilities. Not even the right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership, is absolute.

Man is by nature concerned mainly with his and his family’s interests. That is his biological imperative. Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member—a citizen—of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s 250th Year: A Milestone That Demands We Restore What We’ve Lost
USA flag near municipal building

America’s 250th Year: A Milestone That Demands We Restore What We’ve Lost

A president acting like an entitled king, a Supreme Court behaving like a faction, and a Congress standing silent — this is not the America250 Americans envisioned. How did a nation that spent 240 years expanding rights spend the last decade dismantling them? And how do we honor that democratic journey when the Court is reversing the very rights that made it possible?

Now that the July 4th celebration has passed, we are fully in America’s 250th year — a milestone that not only invites reflection but demands that we confront what has been lost and decide whether we will restore it.

Keep ReadingShow less
People walking to voting booths.

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Democratic Socialists of America Is Not What It Seems

I liked what I knew about the DSA. I liked what Democratic DSA candidates were saying (with some exceptions). Because I believe strongly that our government must be more about the people in order to be true to our founding principles, and industry should have less power. And so I was in agreement with Democrats who are socialists (with a small "s"); indeed, none of the Democratic DSA candidates are Socialists (with a capital "S")—they do not believe that capitalism should be replaced by government or collective ownership of the means of production.

When I first looked at the Democratic Socialists of America, it sounded as though democracy was central to their philosophy. The DSA states that, "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy."

Keep ReadingShow less