Sorry, this started out as a news bit but wound up being near or in the realm of TL/DR. Sorry.
Paul Weiss Deal With Trump Faces Backlash From Legal Profession
Paul Weiss, a law firm targeted by President Trump, reached a deal to settle a conflict. Many in the legal field are condemning the agreement. Some lawyers said the deal was driven by profit. Others said it was enabling autocracy. One said the move had prompted her to quit her legal job in disgust.
All over the legal world, lawyers on Friday were talking about the deal that Paul Weiss, one of the nation’s most prominent law firms, had made with President Trump to escape an onerous executive order that would have prevented it from representing many clients before the federal government. To avoid the hit to its business, the firm agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work for causes favored by the White House.
It was a striking development in the White House’s broad retribution campaign against big law firms that represented lawyers or prosecutors in the criminal cases against Mr. Trump before the 2024 election.
Paul Weiss’s move was a particular point of contention because of the firm’s standing in the legal community. The firm has long been dominated by Democrats and prided itself on being at the forefront of fights against the government for civil rights.
So there you have it, djt can not only neuter a major pro-civil liberties law firm with a quick, easy EO, he can extort millions of dollars worth of free legal services on top of it. The law firm rejects the criticisms of the deal arguing that it can still work with existing clients.
From what I can tell, this is a new line of attack against the rule of law and civil liberties. It also appears to be a new method of extorting the private sector for services that will be used to support all avenues of MAGA authoritarian attacks on democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning, e.g., actual history, climate science, etc.
djt signed the EO on March 14, 2025 with economically damaging provisions directed against the law firm. The key points:
1. It suspended security clearances for Paul Weiss attorneys 1 4.This EO was just one of a series of similar actions by djt targeting law firms whose lawyers had provided legal work that he disagreed with. The order posed a significant risk to Paul Weiss's operations and client relationships.
2. It restricted the firm's lawyers' access to government facilities and official 1 4.
3. The order threatened to terminate federal contracts associated with the firm's clients 4.
4. It required government contractors to disclose any business dealings with Paul Weiss 4.
5. The EO cited the firm's connection to Mark Pomerantz, a former partner who had been involved in the Manhattan district attorney's investigation of Trump 1 11.
6. It also referenced the firm's internal diversity initiatives as a reason for the action 11.
In my opinion, the EO is a pack of lies and slanders [1], including the following insulting screed:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Background. Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles. Many have engaged in activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms, and degrade the quality of American elections. Additionally, they have sometimes done so on behalf of clients, pro bono, or ostensibly “for the public good” — potentially depriving those who cannot otherwise afford the benefit of top legal talent the access to justice deserved by all. My Administration will no longer support taxpayer funds sponsoring such harm.
. .
. .
Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets”[1] based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.
Here, djt and MAGA are making it absolutely clear and explicit that they consider DEI initiatives to be racist and sexist. In fact, DEI is the opposite of that. However, with MAGA elite's cynical racist and sexist mindset, this is the argument they now stand behind to re-establish legal White supremacy, racism, sexism, bigotry and discrimination throughout American government, commerce and society generally.
MAGA is making up insulting bullshit without solid empirical evidence. There is no solid evidence that can rationalize or justify MAGA's attacks on DEI [1]. In other words, the MAGA movement in relation to DEI is racist, sexist, bigoted, mendacious, malicious, arrogant, intolerant and crackpot.
Q: is it hyperbolic, empirically false or otherwise flawed to assert that the MAGA movement in relation to DEI is racist, sexist, bigoted, mendacious, malicious, arrogant, intolerant and crackpot? What are rank & file MAGA supporters of anti-DEI who sincerely but falsely believe they and/or millions of others have been seriously harmed and/or discriminated against by DEI initiatives?
Footnote:
1. Deep research mode:
Q: MAGA elites constantly attack DEIO initiatives are sexist and racist, as exemplified in this EO, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-paul-weiss/ . What has the overall cost-benefit of DEI been including major relevant factors such as increasing discrimination against white people and men, decreasing discrimination against non-white people and women, helping or harming the economy, helping or harming civil liberties generally, forcing diversity into the workforce at the expense of merit and/or worker quality, discrimination against heterosexual men and women by non-heterosexual people, and discrimination against non-heterosexual men and women by heterosexual people, and whatever other significant documented costs and benefits there have been from DEI initiatives? Note that the March 14, 2025 EO is not a phantom document. The link to that EO is on the White House website. Today is March 22, 2025.
A: .... complicated analysis ....
Impact on workforce quality and meritThe Merit vs. Diversity Debate
One of the most contentious aspects of DEI initiatives is their perceived impact on meritocracy and workforce quality. Critics argue that DEI prioritizes demographic characteristics over qualifications, potentially compromising organizational performance.
However, DEI advocates maintain that such initiatives don't bypass qualifications or lower standards. "DEI doesn't mean lowering hiring standards," asserts one analysis, emphasizing that "rigorous hiring processes remain intact" and arguing that such assumptions "undermine HR and leadership" by implying they are incapable of maintaining standards 11. Rather than contradicting merit-based practices, some researchers suggest that DEI and merit-based evaluation are complementary, working together to identify capable candidates who might otherwise be overlooked due to systemic barriers 18.
Research indicates that the debate between merit and diversity may represent a false dichotomy. Some experts argue that merit-based systems, while seemingly fair, often overlook critical realities that create uneven playing fields, and that DEI initiatives can actually enhance merit by expanding the talent pool and ensuring the best qualified candidates are considered regardless of background 18.
Conclusion
The cost-benefit analysis of DEI initiatives reveals a complex picture with substantial evidence supporting economic benefits, alongside legitimate concerns about implementation and impact. Research suggests that well-executed DEI strategies can enhance organizational performance, innovation, and competitiveness, while poorly implemented programs may create perceptions of unfairness or fail to achieve meaningful change.
As political and social tensions continue to shape the discourse around DEI, organizations face the challenge of developing approaches that genuinely foster inclusive environments while addressing concerns about merit, fairness, and effectiveness. The emerging evidence suggests that the most successful strategies will integrate principles of both merit and inclusion, creating workplaces that value excellence while ensuring opportunities are accessible to all qualified individuals.
The recent executive actions targeting specific law firms like Paul Weiss highlight how DEI has become a focal point in broader political and cultural debates about American values and institutions. As these debates continue, empirical assessment of outcomes rather than ideological positioning will be essential for meaningful progress. (emphasis added)
Pro-search mode (wimpy):
Q2: Roughly about how many people have been seriously harmed or unreasonably discriminated against by proven, unfair DEI initiatives? Is it roughly hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, millions or more? Roughly about how many people have been seriously helped or not significantly discriminated against by proven, fair and reasonable DEI initiatives?A2: The scale of DEI's impacts remains challenging to quantify precisely due to limited comprehensive data, but available evidence suggests:
Estimated Harm From Unfair DEI Implementation
Legal Precedents: At least dozens to hundreds of documented reverse discrimination cases exist, with some high-profile awards like the $4 million verdict for a white male executive terminated amid DEI-driven restructuring 6. Federal courts have warned about DEI training creating hostile workplaces in certain contexts 6.
Regulatory Scope: The EEOC and DOJ warn that DEI programs violating Title VII protections could affect employees at "many of our nation’s largest... businesses, universities, and cultural institutions" 10, though no aggregate numbers are provided.Estimated Benefits From Effective DEI ImplementationWorkforce Impacts: Successful programs show:
1. 15% retention improvements for minority employees at individual companies 4
2. $1.2M annual savings per mid-sized tech firm from reduced turnover 4
3. 76% of employees valuing DEI-driven workplace equality 5
Demographic Reach: White women hold 19% of C-suite positions (vs. 4% for women of color) through DEI initiatives 7, while LGBTQ+ employees gain protections like lactation accommodations 3 and Pride Month recognition.Economic Scale: With 65% of companies maintaining DEI budgets in 2025 1, case studies suggest millions likely benefit cumulatively from inclusive hiring practices and workplace accommodations across participating organizations.Key Considerations
Implementation Variance: Outcomes depend heavily on program design - poorly executed initiatives risk discrimination claims 6 10, while strategic ones yield measurable benefits 4 9.Data Limitations: No government agency tracks comprehensive DEI impact statistics, forcing reliance on organizational case studies and court records.
Demographic Paradox: While intended to help marginalized groups, DEI has disproportionately benefited white women in leadership roles 3 7, creating equity debates within equity initiatives.ConclusionThis analysis suggests thousands have likely experienced measurable harm from problematic implementations, while millions have likely benefited from well-designed programs - though precise quantification requires better data collection frameworks. (emphasis added)
