The bare-knuckled tactics of Trump 2.0 have brought some once-mighty companies and institutions to their knees.

Many of the nation’s most prominent places of higher education such as Columbia University improbably have agreed in the face of federal funding threats to Trump administration demands on how they deal with dissent on their campuses and even what courses to offer in certain disciplines.

Industries, including automakers, have been subject to Trumpian threats if they raise prices even in the face of substantial increases in their costs due to the president’s obsession with tariffs. We have yet to see how those companies respond when they face the inevitable choice between substantial decline in profitability and Donald Trump’s wrath.

But perhaps no institution has come under more duress in the three months since Trump began his second term than the legal profession.

Some of the country’s biggest law firms — from Paul Weiss to Skadden Arps — have struck deals with the administration to provide hundreds of millions collectively in free legal work for causes Trump favors. They did so after Trump signed executive orders terminating federal contracts for their services and removing security clearances for their attorneys or threatened to do so. Kirkland & Ellis, the nation’s largest firm, headquartered in Chicago, is reportedly facing similar threats and is said to be negotiating with the administration.

These executive orders almost certainly are unconstitutional, but the firms that have capitulated clearly have made the decision that their businesses were too much at risk to fight. The fear is understandable. Some major corporate clients needing legal representation may not wait to see if the law firm to which it’s paying hourly rates in the high hundreds will manage to extricate itself from a Trump-ordered federal freeze-out. .

Thankfully, a few firms have chosen differently, led by Chicago-based Jenner & Block.

Jenner has won a temporary restraining order against Trump’s absurd March 25 executive order targeting the firm for having the temerity to hire a lawyer years ago who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump. That attorney, Andrew Weissmann, left Jenner in 2021.

Jenner now is seeking to have the executive order thrown out.

It’s no accident Trump has targeted law firms so aggressively. In the first two years of Trump’s first term, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, it was lawyers and judges who proved to be among the strongest roadblocks to the president’s policy goals.

Apart from Trump’s clearly articulated desire for revenge against people and institutions he feels have wronged him, there’s a more nefarious double-pronged strategy at work in this attack on Big Law. The first is that with every settlement, each of which features a pledge to perform free legal work on causes approved by the administration, the president’s team is amassing an army of the best, most well-compensated attorneys in America to fight its battles in court.

At an event Tuesday in which Trump promised to revive the U.S. coal industry, the president said, “Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump?”

Speaking to coal industry representatives, the president said, “We’re going to use some of those firms to work with you on your leasing and your other things.”

Helping producers of some of the most polluting energy sources on Earth gain more access to federal lands and challenge environmental restrictions isn’t what comes first to mind for most folks when they think of the rightful beneficiaries of pro bono legal services. But here we are.

Secondly, the assaults on the nation’s biggest law firms — and the quick surrenders by many of them — have a potentially chilling effect on all firms’ decisions of whether to help certain kinds of clients even if they’re willing and able to pay for these firms’ services. Trump has demonstrated that he will seek to punish firms for representing clients he doesn’t like.

The rule of law in the U.S. — with foundations based on centuries of progress in Britain forged through battles between subjects and monarchs over what constitutes a fair and just society — is the envy of the world for good reason. A critical underpinning of justice in America is the right to counsel — and the freedom of lawyers to zealously represent any client, no matter how unpopular, distasteful or out of favor with the powers that be.

That’s what’s at stake in this unprecedented attempt by a U.S. president to gain control of this vital cog in our civic workings. Jenner & Block — along with Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, which also are combating Trump’s pressure games — is on the right side in this fight and should be commended for its courage. The remainder of Jenner’s peers who haven’t already capitulated should follow the lead of these three.

There’s strength in numbers.

— The Chicago Tribune

The new Bloomberg Originals documentary “Can’t Look Away,” which follows parents suing tech companies after the deaths of their children, is difficult to watch. It should be.

The film lays bare what many parents already know: Social media is rewiring their children’s brains, creating a generation of short attention spans and social anxiety. While viewing the film, what became clear is that tech platforms aren’t doing nearly enough to stop it — and probably never will.

It’s apparent simply in Meta Platforms Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg’s shift in tone. In January 2024, he stood before some of these parents at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and said, “I’m sorry for everything you’ve gone through.” Before the year was out, the Facebook creator’s rhetoric had changed. Donning a gold chain and longer hair, he told an audience of technologists “I don’t apologize anymore.”

So much for remorse. “I think Zuckerberg feels unfairly personally attacked,” Jim Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media, tells me. Steyer’s company, long a thorn in the tech mogul’s side, promotes safer tech for children. “It’s the billionaire’s victim mentality, and it’s truly disappointing.”

“He basically gave the middle finger to the world and said, ‘I’m done,’” Steyer adds. “But the real thing is, he wasn’t driven by the same imperatives as some of the more responsible tech leaders, and quite frankly neither were many of his colleagues at the top of the company.”

Realistically, Zuckerberg isn’t going to dive into making Instagram safer for teenagers. He seems more willing to do the opposite, having just reined in fact-checking and content moderation on Facebook in an obvious appeasement effort toward President Donald Trump, to help improve relations with the administration. (Republicans have accused Meta of censorship for years, while Trump has threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison.)

Sure, social media firms have made some helpful changes until now, but they’ve been laughably minor. In 2020, TikTok added special controls to help parents manage screen time on the app, and in 2021 Instagram made teen accounts private by default. Meta expanded that program last week, but campaigners have said the effectiveness of teen accounts is still unclear.

These were like band-aids on bullet wounds. Neither Meta nor TikTok has addressed the algorithmic design that promotes engagement through emotionally triggering content, keeping millions of kids hooked on their sites and vulnerable to being steered down misogynistic ”manosphere” rabbit holes or to “thinfluencers” on Instagram who promote eating disorders. And they haven’t addressed the scale and speed at which harmful content can spread before any kind of moderation can counteract it.

Despite bipartisan enthusiasm to address online harms, congressional gridlock has continued for years, meaning that lawsuits like the ones featured in Can’t Look Away might be a more effective remedy. Litigation was instrumental in damaging Big Tobacco’s grip on the market in the 1990s. When cases showed, through detailed documents and witnesses, how cigarette makers were engineering products to be addictive and concealing the health risks, public trust collapsed. Smoking became stigmatized.

A similar approach is probably needed to stigmatize social media for under-16s. A cultural movement of sorts is already moving in that direction. Books like “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt and “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams, along with television shows like Netflix’s “Adolescence” have sparked a louder conversation despite the vacuum of legislation, which may be helping to accelerate changes.

A grassroots movement in the UK, formed on WhatsApp groups, has encouraged parents grouped by school classes across the country to delay smartphone use until secondary school. Australia has passed legislation that will ban under-16s from having social media accounts by the end of this year, a law that could be copied elsewhere. And UK policy experts say that the country won’t back down from fining tech firms that breach its new Online Safety Act despite Trump’s recent tariff melee. Meanwhile, several U.S. states are enacting laws to push for phone-free schools. And a trial begins Monday that could force Meta to divest Instagram, following Federal Trade Commission allegations of illegal acquisitions.

Device makers could do more here too. Parental control settings on iPhones and Android phones are notoriously complicated, with options scattered across different menus and unclear technical terminology. Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc. could streamline all that with a dedicated app instead of burying options in screen-time menus where they’re easily circumvented.

But if they don’t, the option of removing phones and social media from kids is becoming more plausible, even if the idea of tearing anyone away from their tiny screens is still hard to imagine. It may be the only alternative to help future generations break the cycle of nonstop scrolling.

Silicon Valley won’t save kids from products designed to be addictive, so perhaps the goal should be to make social media as uncool for kids as cigarettes became in the ‘90s and 2000s. When parents, schools and eventually teens themselves reject these platforms, Big Tech will have no choice but to adapt.

Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of “Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World.”

So much crazy happens with the Trump administration every day that some downright weird but incredibly telling stuff gets lost in the noise. A recent example was the scene on April 8 at the White House where, in the middle of his raging trade war, our president decided it was the perfect time to sign an executive order to bolster coal mining.

“We’re bringing back an industry that was abandoned,” said President Donald Trump, surrounded by coal miners in hard hats, members of a work force that has declined to about 40,000 from 70,000 over the last decade, according to Reuters. “We’re going to put the miners back to work.” For good measure, Trump added about these miners: “You could give them a penthouse on Fifth Avenue and a different kind of a job and they’d be unhappy. They want to mine coal; that’s what they love to do.”

It’s commendable that the president honors men and women who work with their hands. But when he singles out coal miners for praise while he tries to zero out development of clean-tech jobs from his budget — in 2023, the U.S. wind energy industry employed approximately 130,000 workers, while the solar industry employed 280,000 — it suggests that Trump is trapped in a right-wing woke ideology that doesn’t recognize green manufacturing jobs as “real” jobs. How is that going to make us stronger?

A headful of ideas from the ’70s

This whole Trump II administration is a cruel farce. Trump ran for another term not because he had any clue how to transform America for the 21st century. He ran in order to stay out of jail and to get revenge on those who, with real evidence, had tried to hold him accountable to the law. I doubt he has ever spent five minutes studying the workforce of the future.

He then returned to the White House, his head still filled with ideas out of the 1970s. There he launched a trade war with no allies and no serious preparation — which is why he changes his tariffs almost every day — and no understanding of how much the global economy is now a complex ecosystem in which products are assembled from components from multiple countries. And then he has this war carried out by a commerce secretary who thinks millions of Americans are dying to replace Chinese workers “screwing in little screws to make iPhones.”

But this farce is about to touch every American. By attacking our closest allies — Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and the European Union — and our biggest rival, China, at the same time he makes clear he favors Russia over Ukraine and prefers climate-destroying energy industries over future-oriented ones, the planet be damned, Trump is triggering a serious loss of global confidence in America.

The world is now seeing Trump’s America for exactly what it is becoming: a rogue state led by an impulsive strongman disconnected from the rule of law and other constitutional American principles and values.

Let’s connect some dots

And do you know what our democratic allies do with rogue states? Let’s connect some dots.

First, they don’t buy Treasury bills as much as they used to.

So America has to offer them higher rates of interest to do so — which will ripple through our entire economy, from car payments to home mortgages to the cost of servicing our national debt at the expense of everything else.

“Are President Trump’s herky-jerky decision-making and border taxes causing the world’s investors to shy away from the dollar and U.S. Treasurys?” asked The Wall Street Journal editorial page Sunday under the headline, “Is There a New U.S. Risk Premium?” Too soon to say, but not too soon to ask, as bond yields keep spiking and the dollar keeps weakening — classic signs of a loss of confidence that does not have to be large to have a large impact on our whole economy.

The second thing is that our allies lose faith in our institutions.

The Financial Times reported Monday that the European Union’s governing “commission is issuing burner phones and basic laptops to some U.S.-bound staff to avoid the risk of espionage, a measure traditionally reserved for trips to China.” It doesn’t trust the rule of law in America anymore.

The third thing people overseas do is tell themselves and their children — and I heard this repeatedly in China a few weeks ago — that maybe it’s not a good idea any longer to study in America.

The reason: They don’t know when their kids might be arbitrarily arrested, when their family members might get deported to El Salvadoran prisons.

Is this irreversible? All I know for sure today is that somewhere out there, as you read this, is someone like Steve Jobs’ Syrian birth father, who came to our shores in the 1950s to get a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin, someone who was planning to study in America but is now looking to go to Canada or Europe instead.

Shrinking American things that matter

You shrink all those things — our ability to attract the world’s most energetic and entrepreneurial immigrants, which allowed us to be the world’s center for innovation; our power to draw in a disproportionate share of the world’s savings, which allowed us to live beyond our means for decades; and our reputation for upholding the rule of law — and over time you end up with an America that will be less prosperous, less respected and increasingly isolated.

Wait, wait, you say, but isn’t China also still digging coal? Yes, it is, but with a long-term plan to phase it out and to use robots to do the dangerous and health-sapping work of miners.

And that’s the point. While Trump is doing his “weave” — rambling about whatever strikes him at the moment as good policy — China is weaving long-term plans.

In 2015, a year before Trump became president, China’s prime minister at the time, Li Keqiang, unveiled a forward-looking growth plan called “Made in China 2025.” It began by asking, what will be the growth engine for the 21st century? Beijing then made huge investments in the elements of that engine’s components so Chinese companies could dominate them at home and abroad. We’re talking clean energy, batteries, electric vehicles and autonomous cars, robots, new materials, machine tools, drones, quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

The most recent Nature Index shows that China has become “the leading country globally for research output in the database in chemistry, earth and environmental sciences and physical sciences, and is second for biological sciences and health sciences.”

Does that mean China will leave us in the dust? No. Beijing is making a huge mistake if it thinks the rest of the world is going to let China indefinitely suppress its domestic demand for goods and services so the government can go on subsidizing export industries and try to make everything for everyone, leaving other countries hollowed out and dependent. Beijing needs to rebalance its economy, and Trump is right to pressure it to do so.

Poker night? Deal me in

But Trump’s constant bluster and his wild on-and-off imposition of tariffs are not a strategy — not when you are taking on China on the 10th anniversary of Made in China 2025. If Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent really believes what he foolishly said, that Beijing is just “playing with a pair of twos,” then somebody please let me know when it’s poker night at the White House, because I want to buy in. China has built an economic engine that gives it options.

The question for Beijing — and the rest of the world — is: How will China use all the surpluses it has generated? Will it invest them in making a more menacing military? Will it invest them in more high-speed rail lines and six-lane highways to cities that don’t need them? Or will it invest in more domestic consumption and services while offering to build the next generation of Chinese factories and supply lines in America and Europe with 50-50 ownership structures? We need to encourage China to make the right choices. But at least China has choices.

Compare that with the choices Trump is making. He is undermining our sacred rule of law, he is tossing away our allies, he is undermining the value of the dollar and he is shredding any hope of national unity. He’s even got Canadians now boycotting Las Vegas because they don’t like to be told we will soon own them.

So, you tell me who’s playing with a pair of twos.

If Trump doesn’t stop his rogue behavior, he’s going to destroy all the things that made America strong, respected and prosperous.

I have never been more afraid for America’s future in my life.

Thomas Friedman writes a column for the New York Times.

 

I love downtown St. Paul. But let’s be honest: it’s in bad, bad shape — like a beautiful old stage set abandoned after the final curtain.

Sometime this past fall, I went to meet a friend who still keeps an office in one of the bank buildings. I walked through eerily silent hallways. Every office I passed was dark and empty — except his, a cool corner space with the best office view I’ve ever seen. It felt like a scene from a dystopian film, like some invisible disaster had swept through and cleared out all life.

But I remember when it wasn’t like this.

The first time I visited St. Paul was in 1994. I was still living in Copenhagen, Denmark, and came to see my high school exchange-year friend, Reena, who had moved here from Texas. She was living downtown in a sweet condo with her fiancé, near a park. I remember the street-level cafés, the shops in the skyways, even a department store. And during the lunch hour, the streets were vibrant — almost European in their rhythm.

That trip was how I was first introduced to Minnesota. I met relatives I’d never known before. They introduced me to my future husband, and four years later, I moved to Minnesota at age 27. St. Paul became home.

Even after returning to Europe for two years to help my mother through her final chapter, I came back — because I love it here.

I grew up in Copenhagen, one of the most walkable, people-centered cities in the world. Tourists travel across oceans to experience its beauty and livability. And I believe — with the right vision — we could create something just as special right here in downtown St. Paul.

We already have the bones for it. I’ve always loved the Landmark Center square by Rice Park. Mears Park, The Saint Paul Farmers’ Market is still the most iconic and charming market I’ve seen — even compared to those in Europe. The surrounding cafés and bars used to buzz with life. Now, most have vanished.

For years, I was a member of the Saint Paul Athletic Club, housed on Cedar Street in a stunning 1920s-era building with vaulted ceilings and ornate details. Last I heard, it had gone up for auction. That building — like so many others — is just sitting there. Waiting. Wasting.

And here’s the hard truth: It’s a disgrace that our capital city, the symbolic heart of Minnesota, is now a place you’d avoid bringing out-of-town guests. We must do better.

City insiders acknowledge the problems. Madison Equities, which now owns a massive share of downtown property, has been called “a cancer” for the city — acquiring buildings while others bailed, only to let them sit in neglect. For years, city leaders looked the other way, hoping things would self-correct.

They didn’t.

Thankfully, it feels like we may be hitting bottom and starting to rebuild. Office-to-housing conversions are underway, including Landmark Towers, which officially reopens this month as apartments. But real estate professionals remind us: Conversions are expensive and only feasible for buildings with the right dimensions. Incentives like the new CUB tax credit can help, but it won’t be enough on its own. And we can’t just convert office buildings — we need to cultivate a culture. We need people. Residents. Artists. Students. Entrepreneurs. We need density, yes, but also soul and presence.

Let me remind you of something we did once before: around 25 years ago, certain homes along Selby Avenue were sold for one dollar. The catch? You had to live there and fix up your Victorian. People did. They showed up. They invested. Today, that area is one of the city’s most walkable and beloved neighborhoods.

So why not do something similar downtown?

What if the city or state purchased long-vacant buildings and turned them into deeply affordable housing for people under 30? Not a free-for-all, but an application-based program that vets for vision, diversity and community-mindedness. People who want to stay. Who want to plant roots and shape the neighborhood.

Offer these same young creatives ultra-low rent on street-level spaces to open cafés, yoga studios, vintage shops, bookstores, and pop-up galleries. And give them a path to ownership — let them buy into these buildings at ultra-low rates, as long as they agree to live and contribute there for a set number of years.

This isn’t just about real estate. It’s about culture, equity and livability. We don’t need to turn St. Paul into a mini-Minneapolis or a corporate hub — we can become something more human-scale, local, and uniquely alive.

Because right now it feels like downtown is being held hostage by vacancy and the wrong property owners.

But the bones are good. The opportunity is real. And we’ve done this before. We need the courage to bet on people’s presence, creativity, entrepreneurship again — then the business will follow.

Maria Toso is a yoga educator, writer and emotional healing coach, originally from Copenhagen, Denmark. She moved to Minnesota in 1998 and now calls St. Paul home. Maria teaches the Yoga Teacher Training program at Minneapolis College and is the founder of Heal What Hurts, a yogic process for transforming emotional triggers into sources of strength. Her forthcoming book by the same name will be published this September by local publisher Llewellyn Worldwide.