MAY 9, 2026 – Yesterday I heard a story from the horse’s mouth, as it were—that is, testimony that was non-hearsay. Though the story wasn’t told under oath, the witness was eminently trustworthy and credible. The cautionary tale was a chilling firsthand account of authoritarianism. Moreover, the example wasn’t an abstraction or something that “happens to other people in other places.” It affected someone I know and respect; a close friend, a member of our local community, a fellow member of the bar.
In a widely publicized stunt last year, Trump leveled his sights on a bevy of large law firms. He then fired off his ultimata: drop certain lawyers, clients and causes Trump didn’t like and provide free legal services for organizations Trump liked . . . OR ELSE. The “or else” was blocked access to federal buildings (including courthouses) and cancellation of federal contracts with firm clients. The technical legal term for this involuntary quid pro quo is “extortion.” Many of the targeted law firms caved despite the patent unconstitutionality of Trump’s threatened executive orders and legal unenforceability of the resulting settlement agreements.
At the time, most lawyers were scandalized by Trump’s thuggish maneuver and the failure to resist on the part of most of the targeted law firms. If any people and institutions in America had a duty and ability to stand up to a strongman’s extortionist assault on democratic principles, high-powered law firms and their members shouldered that responsibility. With notable exceptions, the people and firms who’ve benefited richly from the practice of law violated their oaths of fidelity to our juridical system. Trump operated by his instincts as a crass money-monger: he knew full well the financial leverage he could apply against his targets.
However much Trump’s ploy was a blatantly authoritarian move, the deeply troubling ramifications for the Republic, for the future of democracy, were largely lost on or forgotten by most eligible voters and ignored by Republicans in Congress. The nation continued its frightening ride down the surly white-water of Trump’s river of outrages.
Many lawyers, however, did not forget or forgive. Locally, one group of retired attorneys from a prestigious firm prepared an open letter condemning the extortionist act of the White House crime boss and obtained the sign-on of approximately 300 lawyers in our community—including the aforementioned friend. This lawyer-friend was also retired except for pro bono work under the auspices of the firm, which provided her with support services.
Soon after the letter’s release came the repercussion—the hammer of authoritarianism, not as reported from afar by some fourth-person-hearsay source; not some theoretical possibility arising as a merely logical and extrapolated consequence over the horizon, but in a very real and immediate blow directly against the witness giving me the first-hand account. The head of the lawyer’s firm fired off an email to the lawyer. In so many words it demanded that she rescind her signature to the letter immediately and provide evidence that she had done so. Otherwise, the email continued, the firm would have no choice but to sever all continuing ties with the lawyer—no more support services, no more malpractice insurance coverage, no more access to the firm’s email server. In other words, the lawyer’s decades of dedicated service—rendered with excellence universally hailed by clients and lawyers alike—were to be considered dead, buried, severed and forgotten. Under the circumstances, the demand prompted a response of resistance.
Why such an abrupt severance? It was not on account of a personal falling out or the cost of the continuing support services or any other reason other than the fear—the fear—that her name associated with a letter critical of Trump’s unconstitutional and extortionist actions could jeopardize the firm’s client standings with the federal government.
When I heard this account, I reacted with shock and dismay. Here was a lawyer whom I’ve known for years; an outstanding member of the local legal community; a friend and citizen committed personally and professionally to the constitution, the rule of law, and due process. More specifically, here was a lawyer who believes, as all members of the profession are duty-bound to believe, that disputes are to be resolved not with a gun, a club or a capricious edict issued by a sour, narcissistic lawless authoritarian, but within a time-honored and time-honed system of jurisprudence, in which principles of fairness, precedent, equality, evidentiary reliability and judicial impartiality are paramount in the administration of justice . . . at least before the DOJ was converted to a mob-style hit squad under the command of a mob-style crime boss.
As Americans are subjected to the daily diversion—most recently, Trump’s baseless blather about the status of war or peace with Iran—we mustn’t forget or forgive his full-bore attack on our democratic foundations. The chilling effect of his move against law firms—mimicked by Trump’s threats against other organizations and whole nations—is mere steps away from authoritarian moves against every single person in America.
Subscribe to this blog and received notifications of new posts by email.
© 2026 by Eric Nilsson
