Trump 2.0 as a modern morality play—where the bad guy always loses.
May 3, 2025
[Reminder: I will hold a Substack livestream on Saturday morning at 8:30 a.m. Pacific / 11:30 a.m. Eastern. Everyone can join; I will post the livestream shortly after it is completed.]
Trump's second term seems like a daily morality play—a medieval drama in which the characters personify abstract virtues and vices, such as good and evil, avarice and generosity, malice and charity. By exaggerating human traits, the playwrights (usually clergy) were hoping that the moral of the play would not be lost on medieval audiences.
Trump and his GOP enablers are engaging in conduct of such grotesque and exaggerated vice that it surpasses caricature. We are not merely unwilling audience members, we are—in a sense—emotional hostages of a play designed by Trump to dispirit and frighten us. But something remarkable is happening. As in medieval morality plays, good triumphs over evil, and everyone can see the ultimate resolution from a mile away.
Whenever Trump is forced to defend his obviously unconstitutional orders in court, he loses—as he should. He is acting in an extra-constitutional manner, replacing the rule of law with his daily dyspepsia that determines his emotional state. In a rational world, i.e., a courtroom bound by the law and the rules of evidence, Trump's infantile temper tantrums carry no weight.
It is frustrating and frightening to endure the flurry of executive orders that everyone knows are unconstitutional and soon-to-be enjoined and overturned. But the period between the issuance of the order and its predictable demise is difficult to stomach, especially when the unlawful orders result in layoffs, cancellation of research projects, and starvation, illness, and death.
Nonetheless, we should take solace from the fact that Trump loses again and again when he is forced to defend his orders in court. The lesson we must internalize is that resistance is not only necessary but also the only path to victory. Those who resist Trump win—eventually. Those who capitulate are forever in his grasp, supplicants whose reward for groveling is more abuse.
Let’s look at today’s developments through the lens of a modern morality play in which everyone knows that Trump will get his comeuppance in the end.
Judge rules that Trump's order punishing Perkins Coie is unconstitutional
Trump suffered a major loss in a case involving his effort to punish the law firm of Perkins Coie for the offense of previously employing voting rights lawyer Marc Elias. The executive order revoked the security clearances and ability of Perkins Coie lawyers to enter government buildings (including courthouses).
On Friday, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the executive order is unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement. See NYTimes, Trump’s Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules. (Accessible to all.)
The opinion is here: Perkins Coie v. DOJ | Memorandum Opinion | 5/2/25.
I highly recommend reading the first five pages of Judge Howell’s opinion, which includes a spirited defense of the role of lawyers in our democracy. The gist of her ruling (citations omitted) is this:
Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion.”
The Supreme Court has long made clear that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics . . . or other matters of opinion.” Simply put, government officials “cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
That, however, is exactly what is happening here. For this reason, and those explained more fully below, Executive Order 14230 is unconstitutional, and the findings and instructions to Executive Branch agencies issued in its Sections 1 through 5 cannot be allowed to stand.
Judge Howell ruled that the executive order violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution and is therefore unenforceable.
The victory by Perkins Coie likely creates a template for other judges to follow in the cases of Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, Covington & Burling, and others.
The ruling stands as a moral indictment of the Capitulating Firms who exalted profits over principle: Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr, Simpson Thatcher, Cadwalader, and A&O Shearman.
Judge Howell addressed the courage of the firms that have challenged Trump and the cowardice (my word, not the judge’s) of the firms that capitulated. In footnote 3, Judge Howell wrote,
Only when lawyers make the choice to challenge rather than back down when confronted with government action raising non-trivial constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of the legal merits, as was done in this case by plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP, plaintiff’s counsel Williams & Connolly, and the lawyers, firms, organizations, and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in this case. [¶]
If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.
Judge Howell’s reference to Perkins Coie and Williams & Connolly as “firms that will be lauded when the history of this period is written” speaks volumes about the Capitulating Firms, who are conspicuously absent from Judge Howell’s description.
Trump will appeal. He will lose. The Supreme Court cannot allow the executive order to stand—or it will sign the death warrant for the legal profession, relegating it to a pantomime of justice that can produce only those outcomes that please the sitting president.
By personifying injustice, Trump has ensured that justice will prevail.
Maine beats Trump in lawsuit over withholding of educational funds
The Trump administration withheld $3 million in federal funds appropriated to Maine for school food programs that fed 172,000 students. The administration withheld food program funding to punish Maine for its refusal to bend its knee to Trump's discrimination against transgender athletes under Title IX.
Which Trump administration official devised such a transparently cruel cudgel to force Maine to back down? Imagine the conversation, “Hey, here’s an idea! If Maine allows transgender athletes to compete, we will withhold food from 172,000 students.”
Maine sued the administration, seeking a declaration that the order failed to follow federal law requiring a fair fact-finding process and hearings. On Friday, Maine announced it had reached a settlement in which the administration backed down and agreed to restore the funds for food programs. See Press Herald, Maine settles lawsuit against USDA over $3 million in school funds.
Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, addressed the victory as follows:
It’s good to feel a victory like this,” Mills said, appearing exuberant as she declared that the state had won this court battle with the Trump administration.
“I stood in the White House and when confronted by the president of the United States, I told him I’d see him in court. Well, we did see him in court, and we won.”
The governor said the federal agency froze money that helps to feed 172,000 children in Maine without any due process, without any rationale and without any congressional authorization.
Good for Maine and Governor Mills for having the courage to stand against Trump!
Trump threatens a variety of unconstitutional actions
With the the victories of Perkins Coie and Maine as a backdrop, let’s consider Trump's latest threats—which are transparently unlawful.
Trump has (again) threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard. Using the IRS to punish political enemies has been unthinkable in the past. Even the hint of retaliation or targeting was a major scandal. Now, Trump is brazenly using the threat of revoking tax-exempt status to force Harvard into submission. Everyone knows such a threat is illegal and unconstitutional. See WSJ, Harvard President Says Any Move to Revoke Tax-Exempt Status Would Be ‘Highly Illegal’.
Harvard will win its fight with Trump. It is only a matter of time. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which the president has acted more corruptly and publicly in using the IRS to punish his perceived political enemies.
In a broadside assault on the judiciary, a Trump-affiliated advocacy group has filed a suit to take over control of judicial operations. By taking charge of operations and funding, Trump could force the judiciary to bend to his will by threatening to withhold funds for judges or circuits that he perceives as hostile to his agenda (as he did with Maine). See Democracy Docket, Group Founded by Trump Ally Stephen Miller Sues John Roberts in Bid to Control Courts.
The conservative advocacy group claims that the departments that fund and manage the judiciary are really part of the executive branch and, therefore, subject to control by Trump. That argument is a loser, and everyone knows it. Moreover, given that John Roberts will rule on Trump's bid to take power from the Chief Justice, the lawsuit is dead on arrival. See Talking Points Memo, Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White House Control Of Court System
So, too, with a suit in which Trump is asking DOGE to gain access to Social Security data that is protected from disclosure by privacy laws. See NYTimes, Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let DOGE View Social Security Data.
The administration is appealing an order from Judge Ellen Hollander that ruled that
[The Social Security Agency] could provide members of the DOGE team “with access to redacted or anonymized data and records,” but only after they received training on privacy laws and policies, were subjected to background investigations and satisfied other requirements.
The trial court allowed access to the data without personal identification information. Trump has objected, demanding that the teenage hackers of DOGE be given access to your private earning history and benefits. What could go wrong?
Here is what could go wrong: United Airlines has canceled dozens of flights to and from Newark after air traffic controllers walked off the job due to repeated equipment failures. See News 12 New Jersey, CEO: United to cancel 35 daily roundtrip flights at Newark Liberty due to air traffic controller shortage.
Hmm. . . what could have possibly caused air traffic controller shortages? Here’s a clue: See Forbes (3/4/25), Aviation Safety At Risk Amid DOGE Cuts And Shutdown Fears, Industry Leaders Tell Congress.
The hackers at DOGE have no clue about the damage their reckless actions are having on the safety and security of Americans on multiple fronts. The chaos at the FAA is so bad that United Airlines won’t fly into Newark with non-stop flights. Imagine if DOGE obtained access to the unredacted files of every contributor or beneficiary of Social Security.
As before, the Trump administration is not satisfied with a reasonable position--asking for anonymized data to perform efficiency audits. It wants individual information to target enemies, as it did with Harvard and Maine.
The choice facing the Supreme Court is as plain as the contrived conflict in a morality play. The Court has created a monster; the question is whether it will restrain him. The Supreme Court should deny the administration’s request to overturn the stay issued by the trial court.
Opportunity for Reader Engagement
All In for NC and 12 other groups are sponsoring, Telling Our Stories: Defeating MAGA Through Local Voices, a fundraiser for Progress NC Action on Thursday, May 8, 7:30-8:30 pm ET/4:30-5:30 pm PT. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler will keynote. Your support will allow Progress NC to hire a first-ever statewide storytelling coordinator to empower people who can tell their stories on social and traditional media and in their communities. The project will create a video story bank, train organizations in more effective communications, and build a new coalition of groups to compete with the Right Wing Propaganda Machine by targeting 500,000 voters in swing suburban and rural counties.
All In for North Carolina (AINC) is an all-volunteer, mostly out-of-state organization. We partner with North Carolina organizations on phone banking, fundraising, educating volunteers and canvassing. For more information or to volunteer click here.
Please join us on May 8 with a contribution of any size.
Concluding Thoughts
When we fight, we win. The moral is clear: We must fight everything, everywhere, all at once. The more we fight, the more we win.
We won’t win every battle. But over time, rationality and the rule of law will prevail. Our efforts to defend democracy hasten the day when reckoning will arrive!
I hope to see you at 8:30 am Pacific / 11:30 am Eastern on the Substack livestream on Saturday morning.
Have a good weekend, everyone!
Daily Dose of Perspective
The Triangulum Galaxy is 2.73 million light years from Earth.
While it is appreciated how you have reviewed and explained the outcomes of these legal challenges it is so discouraging. All Trump has done in his first 100 days is to allow Musk to gut the federal government, execute cruel immigration policies and vindictive acts of retribution! It's so hard not to feel flattened. But today my husband and I will participate in a protest here in Kalamazoo Michigan organized by Indivisible in support of labor. We have to do something!
I just learned a couple days ago that the DNC launched a Substack newsletter , called “The Blue Print,” to keep folks informed about what’s going on in Congress, this administration, and the fight for democracy. There are many dem leaders who are contributing to this. Seems like a good development…. Here is the link:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dnctheblueprint/p/the-dnc-is-making-historic-investments?r=dvk19&utm_medium=ios