Trump’s Washington

How President Trump is changing government, the country and its politics.

Good evening. Tonight, my colleague Elizabeth Williamson, a features writer for The Times in the Washington bureau, has a look at the lawyers taking on the government after many big firms backed off. We’ll start with the news. — Jess Bidgood

The upside of suing Trump

There are 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S., and about 115,000 of them work for the nation’s largest 100 firms, doing high-profile work for big-name corporations. These firms house big pro bono practices too, and in President Trump’s first term they challenged some of his policies on behalf of groups and individuals who could otherwise never afford such heavy legal firepower.

Lawyers say such cases scratch a particular itch: They center on constitutional law, the bedrock of the American democratic system, reminding them of why they became lawyers in the first place. Many lawyers say that they wish they could continue with this work, but that their firms’ leaders are stopping them.

As the number of legal challenges to Trump has surged during his second term, Big Law is shrinking from the battle, cowed by Trump’s executive orders and implicit threats against a dozen big firms whose past work, including on some of those pro bono cases, he does not like. Several fought back in court and have prevailed so far, but nine placated the president with rich offers of free work on behalf of his preferred causes. Most of the rest have retreated to the sidelines.

Enter the little guys.

Today, I’ll look at who sues the government when the big guns go quiet — and what’s in it for them.

David v. Goliath: Good for business

Thousands of solo practitioners and small law firms have jumped into the fray, joining with “good-government” nonprofits to fight what they view as attempts to undermine the rule of law. They know their way around the federal court system and they’re busy enough representing individuals, small businesses or municipalities, but they generally don’t have to worry about losing big government-contractor clients.

Working as an underdog on a big case against the government can help small firms or individual lawyers expand their networks and heighten their profiles. They are standing up when far bigger players stood down — and who doesn’t want a lawyer with a reputation as a fighter?

‘Worried about the rule of law’

One lawyer doing this work is Robin Johansen, senior counsel at Olson Remcho, a California firm of 21 lawyers. The firm represents the California Legislature, the city and county of Los Angeles and multiple government officials, but Johansen said she felt she needed to do something more about “what’s going in the country.”

“I’m very worried about the rule of law,” she told me. In 1974, Johansen worked as a research assistant for the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry against Richard M. Nixon over the Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned after Republican congressmen told him he had lost his party’s support.

(Johansen, who grew up in a Republican family, compared that with current Republicans’ refusal to stand up to Trump. “The contrast is appalling,” she said.)

Watching a president be held to account inspired Johansen to become a lawyer. She wasn’t alone: During the 1970s, the number of lawyers in the U.S. jumped by 76 percent, according to the American Bar Association. After a clerkship in corporate law that she found dull, Johansen was drawn to government and elections work. “The stuff is just so darned interesting,” she said. “It’s been a great career.”

This year, Johansen joined the new Pro Bono Litigation Corps, created by the legal nonprofit Lawyers for Good Government. She’s working on a friend-of-the-court brief supporting a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. About 20 community, environmental and tribal groups, as well as the cities of Springfield, Mass., San Francisco and Sacramento, are suing to restore grants they lost after the agency terminated a block-grant program aimed at helping disadvantaged communities.

Does she believe the challenges of the moment will inspire more young people to join the legal field, and hold government to account?

“I can’t predict, but I hope so,” she said. “The quality of the lawyers I see in government is amazing. They’re extraordinarily dedicated. They make me proud of my profession.”

IN HIS WORDS

Tariffs for peace

President Trump is bragging that he ended a war with the threat of looming tariffs. My colleague Minho Kim, a reporter in the Washington bureau, explains.

Beginning on Thursday, Thailand and Cambodia exchanged heavy fire over a disputed border in their bloodiest military conflict in more than a decade. But the two countries agreed to a truce starting at midnight on Monday after both the United States and China ratcheted up pressure on them to halt the fighting.

President Trump said on Saturday that the United States — the largest importer of goods from both countries, according to the World Bank — would not negotiate trade deals with either country unless they stopped fighting.

The truce prompted Trump to take a victory lap. “I have now ended many Wars in just six months — I am proud to be the President of PEACE!”

This was only his latest attempt to use tariffs as a coercive foreign policy tool. This month, Trump threatened Russia with “very severe tariffs” if it did not agree to a peace deal soon, a threat that he escalated on Monday.

Got a tip?
The Times offers several ways to send important information confidentially.

IN ONE GRAPHIC

Sources: The Observatory of Economic Complexity; U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security; United States International Trade Commission Dataweb

With steep and sometimes punishing tariffs on America’s friends and foes alike, President Trump has sought to reset the world trading order, raise new federal revenue and pressure private businesses to make more of their products in the United States.

Whether he will succeed remains an open question with great consequence for the U.S. economy.

On Friday, Trump is set to impose another round of taxes on imports from many countries. His actions threaten to revive a style of trade brinkmanship that has previously rattled markets, and will most likely result in price increases on American consumers and businesses.

My colleagues Lazaro Gamio and Tony Romm produced an illuminating interactive guide illustrating the state of play on Trump’s tariffs on countries across the globe. It’s worth your time.

ONE LAST THING

Where did the MAGA Instant Pot go?

Like most appliances, the Instant Pot used to keep quiet about its politics.

But recently, it went all-in for President Trump.

The private equity firm that owns Instant Pot, which was seeking the administration’s help on tariffs and with a looming antitrust inquiry, announced it would issue Trump-branded versions of the cooker and a host of other products made by its subsidiaries. Proceeds would go to the fund to build Trump’s presidential library.

It looked like another blatant attempt to curry favor with the president through flattery, my colleagues David Fahrenthold and Ben Protess report. But it backfired.

Read more here.

Read past editions of the newsletter here.

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here.

Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.