The World's Worst Dealmaker

This week brings another reminder that Donald Trump is very, very bad at making deals.

Thanks for being a free subscriber. If you like what you’re reading, maybe it’s time to upgrade to a paid subscription.

This newsletter is 100% reader-supported, and subscriptions allow me to continue publishing.

As my new subscriber Ellie did last week, upgrade from free to a paid subscriber! When you become a paid subscriber, you receive access to all my posts, the ability to comment on posts and engage in the Truth and Consequences community, and, above all, you get the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with supporting independent journalism! Your support is so appreciated. Enjoy today’s post!

Last month, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Jamie Raskin sent letters to six major law firms that cut deals with the Trump administration to avoid the imposition of onerous executive orders on them. The two lawmakers were seeking information on these firms' concessions to the White House. The Bulwark published several of the responses today, and they suggest that Donald Trump is not quite the genius dealmaker he likes to portray himself as.

As a quick reminder, over the past several months, Trump has issued executive orders against prominent DC and NY law firms that sought to limit their access to the executive branch and forbid the federal government from doing business with them. Some firms fought the president’s order in court; this week, one of them, Perkins Coie, won a major legal victory against the White House. Most firms, however, reached agreements with Trump to forestall the executive orders in return for pledges of millions in pro bono work on behalf of causes that align with the president’s priorities. These firms endured biting criticism for bending their knee to the president. But it increasingly appears that the firms might have outsmarted the White House (granted, that’s a low bar).

According to The Bulwark, which has seen the responses sent to Blumenthal and Raskin, “several firms that cut deals with the White House said that under their reading of the settlements, they maintained authority to choose their pro bono clients.”

Here are a few choice excerpts:

“Latham maintains its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements,” read a letter from Latham & Watkins.

“The agreement does not dictate or restrict what pro bono matters we will take on moving forward,” read the letter from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

“We have not and will not restrict our pro bono activities or the positions we take on behalf of those clients,” read the letter from the firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The letter from A&O Shearman … notes that “The Agreement does not call for, or permit, the administration or any other person or entity to determine what clients and matters the Firm takes on, whether they be pro bono matters or otherwise,” the letter reads.

So, to summarize, each law firm agreed to do millions in pro bono work, but the firms get to decide the specifics and are not required to do any particular pro bono work on behalf of the White House.

We had an inkling of this last month. In April, the New York Times ran a piece that didn’t receive nearly enough attention, noting that this is precisely how the firms understood the deals.

Two people said that Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, was very clear with the firm’s top leadership that his agreement with Mr. Trump was essentially a codification of work that Paul Weiss already does, a message echoed by leaders of other firms about their agreements.

Another firm, Kirkland, sent a firmwide letter that said the “firm will continue to determine which matters we take on both pro bono and otherwise — consistent with our nonpartisan mindset.” In an email to its staff, A & O Shearman said the firm was “completely free to choose whether or not we wish to work on any particular pro bono matter.”

The Times even noted that “it is unclear whether the firms even signed formal written deals spelling out the terms, or if they were essentially handshake agreements.”

That same Times article suggested that Trump had a more expansive view of the agreements. He has said, for example, that the firms could assist him in negotiating foreign trade deals (who needs the US Trade Representative) or “help with his goal of reviving the coal industry.” In effect, Trump viewed the pledges of pro bono assistance as a slush fund for his political priorities, which goes to prove … once a criminal, always a criminal.

The thing is, if you want that kind of arrangement, you need to get it on paper — and it seems that Trump did not. From all appearances, these law firms pulled a fast one on the White House and conceded nothing in return for Trump taking his foot off their necks. As much as they merit criticism for the appearance of giving in to Trump, you kind of need to respect the game the firms played here.

It’s possible that the White House could say the firms haven’t agreed to their side of the bargain, and issue the orders anew, but if there’s any type of written agreement, and in the context of the Perkins Coie ruling, that might be a difficult lift.

Trump Is Terrible At Making Deals

Trump’s inability to negotiate deals is not a new development. He’s always been terrible at it.

His problems are legion.

First, he negotiates publicly or shows his hand, thus surrendering leverage. For example, his public pressuring of Ukraine to make a deal with Russia only encouraged Moscow to drive a harder bargain, comfortable in the knowledge that Trump would only demand concessions from one side. Weeks later, his administration seems shocked that they’ve been unable to get the two sides to reach an agreement to stop the war.

Second, Trump opens negotiations by taking a hardline position and then flees at the first sign of conflict—or flattery. On April 9, the day his Liberation Day tariffs went into effect, it took around 12 hours for the bond markets to freak out and for Trump to announce a retreat. In doing so, he showed that he wasn’t fully committed to the tariffs and could be moved if he was made suitably uncomfortable (one can imagine that Chinese leaders noted that).

Trump, of course, is also susceptible to flattery. For the first nearly two years of his administration, he talked tough on North Korea’s nuclear program. He went so far as to call the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, “Rocket Man” and threatened to use military force against North Korea. Then Kim asked for a summit and lathered Trump with adulation — and the president started treating the sociopathic dictator like a schoolgirl crush. Suffice it to say, no progress was made in controlling North Korea’s nuclear program.

Third, he doesn’t understand details. Back in January, Trump announced new tariffs on Mexico and Canada. The leaders of both countries called him and made vague promises to address his concerns (in both cases, they reiterated policies already announced and implemented) — and Trump backed down. He was seemingly unaware that he’d gotten absolutely nothing in return. The same goes for these law firm agreements. He was so excited to announce a deal that he didn’t notice he’d been played.

It’s sad, actually. The one thing that Trump thinks he’s good at, he’s historically bad at. I guess he can take some solace in repeatedly convincing tens of millions of Americans, against all evidence to the contrary, that he’s not an imbecile.

What’s Going On

• Why does Trump want to reopen the prison on Alcatraz Island? He watched the movie Escape from Alcatraz on Saturday night. I really, really wish I could make this stuff up.

• Tourists at Alcatraz think Trump is nuts, but these two quotes below are a depressing reminder of the Climate of Fear that Trump has created.

  • Another visitor, a 46-year-old from Iowa, said reopening Alcatraz would be “a waste of money.” She spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid a dispute with her husband, a Trump voter.

  • Several international tourists — from Argentina, Poland, and the Netherlands — declined to speak on the record out of fear that they would not be allowed to travel freely in the United States or obtain visas to live here if they were quoted disagreeing with the president.

• A 20-year-old Venezuelan man was protected from deportation by a legal settlement. Trump deported him anyway.

• A woman in Georgia called a 5-year-old the “n” word. She’s become a right-wing hero.

• The North Carolina state Supreme Court race might finally be over.

• Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard that you simply must read.

Musical Interlude