Trump Administration News: State Dept. Ignores Order to Detail Return of Wrongly Deported Migrant (2025)

The State Dept. says a wrongfully deported Maryland man is ‘alive and secure’ in a Salvadoran prison.

But the official, Michael G. Kozak, provided few other details, despite an order by Judge Paula Xinis of the Federal District Court in Maryland directing the government to describe, by 5 p.m. Saturday evening, what steps it had taken to secure his return to the United States.

Mr. Kozak wrote that Mr. Abrego Garcia was detained “pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador,” but he did not elaborate. The Salvadoran president, Nayib Bukele, is an ally of President Trump and has agreed to accept deportees from the United States. Mr. Bukele is set to meet with Mr. Trump in Washington on Monday.

The Trump administration has said that Mr. Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador on March 15 because of an “administrative error.”

On Friday, Judge Xinis said in a hearing that she found the administration’s unwillingness to provide information about Mr. Abrego Garcia “extremely troubling.” She ordered the government to provide daily updates, beginning Saturday, detailing efforts to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back.

The Supreme Court waded into the case on Thursday, instructing the government to take steps to return Mr. Abrego Garcia. But even as the Supreme Court said that Judge Xinis had “properly” directed the government to bring him back, it left open the possibility that courts may not have the power to require the executive branch to do so.

The Supreme Court asked Judge Xinis to clarify her directive and said the government should “be prepared to share what it can." The ruling appeared to be unanimous, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately for the court’s three-member liberal bloc, saying that Judge Xinis should “continue to ensure that the government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.”

On Friday, Mr. Trump said that “if the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.”

Lawyers for Mr. Abrego Garcia filed their own court papers on Saturday, saying that the government should be forced at a hearing on Tuesday to provide witnesses from the federal government capable of offering specific details about his status.

They also wrote that the government should be required to show by Monday why it “should not be held in contempt due to its failure to comply with the court’s prior orders.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Harvard professors sue the Trump administration over its threat to cut funding.

The suit, filed in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, seeks a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from cutting the funds.

“This action challenges the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus,” the lawsuit said.

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has been on a campaign against elite universities that it views as being too lax on antisemitism. In a recent letter to Harvard, the administration said the school had “fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence.” Other top schools like Columbia and Cornell have also been targeted.

Harvard did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday. In recent weeks, Alan Garber, the university president, has said that Harvard had spent “considerable effort” during the past 15 months addressing antisemitism, adding that there was still more work to be done.

In a statement, Andrew Manuel Crespo, a law professor at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, said the administration’s policies are a pretext to chill universities and their faculties from engaging in speech, teaching and research that don’t align with President Trump’s views.

“Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants,” Mr. Crespo said.

On Saturday afternoon, hundreds of protesters, including students, professors and even the mayor of Cambridge, braved the cold to protest against the Trump administration’s threat to cut Harvard’s funding. At a packed park in Cambridge, Mass., home to Harvard’s campus, they called on the university to lead the charge against the government’s crackdown on higher education.

“Harvard possesses not just the resources to withstand the pressure,” said Mayor Denise Simmons of Cambridge, “but the moral obligation to do so.”

Miles J. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Cambridge, Mass.

Trump cutbacks force layoffs at a U.S.-backed broadcaster in the Middle East.

Without financial support, the broadcaster said, 22 countries across the Middle East and North Africa would lose a rare Arabic-language news outlet with a U.S. perspective. The layoffs have affected about 500 workers.

Jeffrey Gedmin, president of the organization, a private nonprofit, said the Trump administration’s funding cuts amounted to an “act of vandalism.” He said the broadcaster operated on a budget of $100 million — roughly the cost of two Apache attack helicopters — and played a key role in countering Russian, Iranian and Chinese efforts to advance their viewpoints in the Middle East.

“If you believe in soft power, it’s a pretty good deal,” said Mr. Gedmin, who has led the organization for a year and previously was the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, another U.S.-funded news organization that sued the administration after its funding was pulled.

About 30 staff members remained at the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Mr. Gedmin said. He predicted it could operate for about six weeks at current staffing levels before it would have to close. In the meantime, the broadcaster plans to limit its programming to “repeat, evergreen programs” and about one news story a week.

In an email to staff on Saturday, Mr. Gedmin wrote that he expected “twists and turns in our legal process going forward but, unfortunately, no sign that the disbursement owed to M.B.N. will arrive anytime soon.”

In March, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Agency for Global Media, a congressionally chartered agency, to withdraw support for the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and other U.S.-backed news sources, including Voice of America, which he has accused of having a liberal bias. The order targeted parts of the federal bureaucracy that the president had determined to be “unnecessary,” it said.

Neither the White House nor officials at the U.S. Agency for Global Media replied to requests for comment on Saturday.

Mr. Trump has installed one of his loyalists, Kari Lake, to advise the Agency for Global Media. He said in a statement last year that Ms. Lake would “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY.” Ms. Lake, a former news anchor and Senate candidate who has said waste and fraud run rampant in the Agency for Global Media, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.

The Middle East Broadcasting Networks runs Alhurra, a satellite TV channel, and reaches about 30 million adults each week, according to its leadership.

Grant Turner, who served as chief executive of the Agency for Global Media for part of the first Trump administration, said the gutting of Middle East Broadcasting Networks would damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.

He said he found it “unexplainable” that the administration would cut the organization’s funding given its role in helping Middle Eastern audiences understand U.S. policies and perspectives after Sept. 11.

“It’s bad for our country,” he said. “It’s bad for the world. It’s bad for this administration. It’s a stupid thing for this administration to do.”

Minho Kim contributed reporting.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Trump exempts many electronics from new tariffs.

The exemptions are not a full reprieve. Other tariffs will still apply to electronics and smartphones. The Trump administration had applied a tariff of 20 percent on Chinese goods earlier this year for what the administration said was the country’s role in the fentanyl trade. And the administration could still end up increasing tariffs for semiconductors, a vital component of smartphones and other electronics.

The moves were the first major exemptions for Chinese goods, which would have wide-ranging implications for the U.S. economy if they persist. Tech giants such as Apple and Nvidia would largely sidestep punitive taxes that could slash their profits. Consumers — some of whom rushed to buy iPhones this past week — would avoid major potential price increases on smartphones, computers and other gadgets. And the exemptions could dampen additional inflation and calm the turmoil that many economists feared might lead to a recession.

The tariff relief was also the latest flip-flop in Mr. Trump’s effort to rewrite global trade in a bid to boost U.S. manufacturing. The factories that churn out iPhones, laptops and other electronics are deeply entrenched in Asia — especially in China — and are unlikely to move without a galvanizing force like the steep taxes that the Trump administration had proposed.

“It’s difficult to know if there’s a realization within the administration that reworking the American economy is a gargantuan effort,” said Matthew Slaughter, the dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

The electronics exemptions apply to all countries, not just China.

Still, any relief for the electronics industry may be short-lived, since the Trump administration is preparing another national security-related trade investigation into semiconductors. That will also apply to some downstream products like electronics, since many semiconductors come into the United States inside other devices, a person familiar with the matter said. These investigations have previously resulted in additional tariffs.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, said in a statement on Saturday that Mr. Trump was still committed to seeing more of these products and components made domestically. “President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies” and that at his direction, tech companies “are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible,” she said.

A senior administration official, speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said that Friday’s exemptions were aimed at maintaining America’s supply of semiconductors, a foundational technology used in smartphones, cars, toasters and dozens of other products. Many cutting-edge semiconductors are manufactured overseas, such as in Taiwan.

Paul Ashworth, the chief North America economist for Capital Economics, said the move “represents a partial de-escalation of President Trump’s trade war with China.”

He said the 20 product types that were exempted on Friday account for nearly a quarter of U.S. imports from China. Other countries in Asia would be even bigger winners, he said. Should the tariffs on those countries kick in again, the exemption would cover 64 percent of U.S. imports from Taiwan, 44 percent of imports from Malaysia and nearly a third of imports from both Vietnam and Thailand, he said.

The changes punctuated a wild week in which Mr. Trump backtracked from many tariffs he introduced on April 2, which he had called “liberation day.” His so-called reciprocal tariffs had introduced taxes that would reach up to 40 percent on products imported from some nations. After the stock and bond markets plunged, Mr. Trump reversed course and said he would pause levies for 90 days.

China was the one exception to Mr. Trump's relief because Beijing chose to retaliate against U.S. tariffs with levies of its own. Instead of pausing tariffs on Chinese imports, Mr. Trump increased them to 145 percent and showed no willingness to spare any companies from those fees. In return, China on Friday said it was raising its tariffs on American goods to 125 percent.

That sent shares of many technology companies into free fall. Over four days of trading, the valuation of Apple, which makes about 80 percent of its iPhones in China, fell by $773 billion.

For now, Mr. Trump’s moderation is a major relief for a tech industry that has spent months cozying up to the president. Meta, Amazon and several tech leaders donated millions to President Trump’s inauguration, stood behind him as he was sworn into office in January and promised to invest billions of dollars in the United States to support him.

Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has been at the forefront of the industry’s courtship of Mr. Trump. He donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inauguration and later visited the White House to pledge that Apple would spend $500 billion in the United States over the next four years.

The strategy repeated Mr. Cook’s tactics during Mr. Trump’s first term. To head off requests that Apple begin manufacturing its products in the United States rather than China, Mr. Cook cultivated a personal relationship with the president that helped Apple win exemptions on tariffs for its iPhones, smartwatches and laptops.

It had been unclear if Mr. Cook could obtain a similar break this time, and the tariffs Mr. Trump proposed were more severe. As the Trump administration increased its taxes on Chinese goods, Wall Street analysts said Apple might have to increase the price of its iPhones from $1,000 to more than $1,600.

The threat of higher iPhone prices caused some Americans to rush to Apple stores to buy new phones. Others raced to buy computers and tablets that were made in China.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Apple’s iPhone quickly became a symbol of the tit-for-tat over tariffs with China. On Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and said the tariffs would result in an “army of millions and millions of people screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones” in the United States. Ms. Leavitt said later in the week that Mr. Trump believed that the United States had the resources to make iPhones for Apple.

“Apple has invested $500 billion here in the United States,” she said. “So if Apple didn’t think the United States could do it, they probably wouldn’t have put up that big chunk of change.”

Apple has faced questions about moving some iPhone manufacturing to the United States for more than a decade. In 2011, President Obama asked Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, what it would take to make the company’s best-selling product in the United States rather than China. In 2016, Mr. Trump also pressured Apple to change its position.

Mr. Cook has remained steadfast in his commitment to China and has said the United States doesn’t have enough skilled manufacturing workers to compete with China.

“In the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers, and I’m not sure we could fill the room,” he said at a conference in late 2017. “In China, you could fill multiple football fields.”

Additional tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics could come in the next few weeks or months. The administration has signaled it is considering such tariffs under a legal statute known as Section 232, alongside other tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals.

The president has already used the statute to put a 25 percent tariff on imported steel, aluminum and automobiles, and is weighing similar steps for imported lumber and copper. All of those sectors were given exemptions from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that the president announced on April 2.

Speaking to reporters the next day, the president said that other tariffs on chips would be “starting very soon,” adding that the administration was also looking at tariffs on pharmaceuticals. “We’ll be announcing that sometime in the near future,” he said. “It’s under review right now.”

The other tariffs that the Trump administration has applied through Section 232 investigations have been set at 25 percent — much lower than the 145 percent tariff currently in place for many products from China.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

An appeals court scales back a freeze on firing consumer bureau employees.

In a lawsuit brought by the bureau’s staff union and other parties, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington froze those actions last month with an injunction to stop what she described as the administration’s “hurried effort to dismantle and disable the agency entirely.” The Justice Department appealed her ruling.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected the government’s request to strike down Judge Jackson’s injunction, but it stayed parts of her ruling while the government’s appeal progresses. Specifically, the appeals court said the agency’s leaders can send a “reduction in force” notice — the process through which the government conducts layoffs — to employees they have determined are not necessary to carry out the agency’s “statutory duties.”

When Congress created the consumer bureau in 2011, it assigned the watchdog agency dozens of tasks and ordered it to staff certain positions, including offices to aid student loan borrowers, military service members and older Americans. Those mandated obligations have been at the heart of the legal fight over the agency, because the bureau is required to fulfill those duties unless Congress acts.

Mr. Vought’s team fired more than 200 probationary and fixed-term employees, only to reinstate most of them, with back pay, on Judge Jackson’s orders. The appeals court cleared the way for some to be fired again. Agency leaders may terminate employees after “an individualized assessment” of their necessity for carrying out the agency’s statutory tasks, the ruling said.

But the court left much of Judge Jackson’s order intact, including her mandates that agency leaders shall not delete or destroy most of the bureau’s records and data, and that employees must be given access to either physical office space or the tools needed to work remotely. The consumer bureau’s Washington headquarters has remained shuttered and off limits to workers since Mr. Vought’s arrival.

The appeals court expedited the government’s appeal and scheduled oral arguments for May 16.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The White House moves an Obama portrait to make room for one of Trump.

Typically, paintings of presidents and first ladies are hung in the White House after they have left office, historians said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama declined to comment.

The portrait of Mr. Obama, which was unveiled in the East Room during the administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., shows the former president in a dark suit and silver tie, standing with his hands in his pockets. The background is white; the portrait was based on photographs taken by the artist Robert McCurdy.

The new painting shows Mr. Trump embraced by a team of Secret Service agents as an American flag billows in a cloudless blue sky behind him. Streaks of red run across his face.

The artwork depicts a scene similar to still images taken after a would-be assassin fired at Mr. Trump, hitting him in his ear, during a campaign speech in Pennsylvania in July. The words uttered by a defiant Mr. Trump after the shooting — “Fight! Fight! Fight!” — became a rally cry for his supporters.

The painting of Mr. Trump is on a wall opposite from Mr. Obama’s, the White House said, adding that Mr. Trump’s was placed in the spot for the newest presidential portrait.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that the “executive mansion is the president’s home, and he has the right to make changes as other presidents have in the past.”

“President Trump decided to temporarily display this painting, which represents a pivotal moment in history when he nearly lost his life,” she added. “Only The New York Times would find a problem with this.”

Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at the City University of New York and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, said he was surprised to see the new artwork.

“It just seems tacky,” Mr. Widmer said. “It feels different from our tradition of venerating the distinguished holders of the office from both parties — and going in a new direction of walking around looking at images of yourself all day long.”

But Julian E. Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton, said the move fit into a pattern.

“In the second term, it’s not just winning the White House,” Mr. Zelizer said of Mr. Trump. “He’s always had intense animosity for President Obama, all the way back to the early 2010s. And I think this time around, he really wants to show that he has — in his mind — supplanted him.”

Barbara A. Perry, a presidential studies professor at the University of Virginia, said she found the style of the painting, with blood on Mr. Trump’s face, particularly “odd.”

“Can you imagine Gerald Ford having a portrait painted of himself ducking?” Ms. Perry said of an assassination attempt against Ford, the 38th president, in 1975. She added, “This would be viewed as lacking in taste in days gone by.”

Trump issues a plan that would turn border land into a ‘military installation.’

The directive expands a military presence that has increased steadily along the southern border, even as crossings have already dropped precipitously during the Trump administration. The ordering of troops to the border has already put the military in politically charged territory, and, depending on the details of the effort, the plan could run afoul of laws that limit the use of regular federal troops for domestic law enforcement.

The directive says that the border strip will become a “military installation under the jurisdiction of” the Pentagon. Military members would be able to stop anyone crossing into the “military installation” but would not have the power to make immigration arrests, according to the military official. Border Patrol agents could then be summoned to arrest the migrants.

The memorandum formalizes a plan that the administration had been considering for weeks. The Washington Post had reported on the plan earlier.

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions seeking clarity as to what U.S. forces operating in the strip of border land would be able to do. A Defense Department spokesman also did not respond to questions seeking clarity.

Military officials are still working out how to execute the plan, including how long troops could detain migrants before turning them over to Border Patrol agents, and what type of “no trespassing” signs needed to be installed along the border, warning migrants they were about to enter a U.S. military reservation.

Then there are other logistics that would have to be hammered out, such as the languages the signs are written in, and how far apart they are posted. There is also the question of where to position military patrols along hundreds of miles of rugged land along the border, and what additional training those troops might need.

Adam Isacson, who focuses on border security and human rights at the Washington Office on Latin America, said the memorandum appeared to create a path for using quasi-military personnel to detain migrants.

A section of the memorandum calls for the authorization of state National Guard members to work on the military-controlled strip. If those working at the installation hold migrants until Customs and Border Protection officials pick them up, their use “comes very close to military personnel detaining migrants,” Mr. Isacson said.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The Education Department is threatening to cut all federal funding for Maine schools.

The administration had set Friday as the deadline for Maine to comply; last month, after a brief investigation, it declared that the state’s education system was violating Title IX, the federal law that prevents sex discrimination.

Ms. Mills has maintained that the state’s human rights law — which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity as well as religion, race and other protected characteristics — can be changed only by the Legislature, not by executive order. She has not expressed her own views on transgender athletes participating in girls’ and women’s sports publicly, though she has said it was an issue “worthy of a debate.”

The Education Department said in a statement that it would “initiate an administrative proceeding to adjudicate termination” of the state’s K-12 funding, which totaled $249 million in the 2024 fiscal year.

“The department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” Craig Trainor, the department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in the statement.

In a letter to the Education Department on Friday, Sarah A. Forster, an assistant state attorney general, said that Maine would not agree to change its law and conceded that the two sides had reached an impasse.

“Nothing in Title IX or its implementing regulations prohibits schools from allowing transgender girls and women to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams,” she wrote. “Your letters to date do not cite a single case that so holds. To the contrary, various federal courts have held that Title IX and/or the Equal Protection Clause require schools to allow such participation.”

The Maine Principals’ Association, which supervises interscholastic athletics, has said that among the 151 public and private high schools it oversees statewide, there are two transgender girls currently competing on girls’ teams.

Since February, the Trump administration has hammered the state with overlapping investigations of its education system. Last week, the Agriculture Department froze funding that Maine said could threaten its school meals programs. In response, the state sued the department.

Not long after the Education Department’s announcement on Friday, a federal judge in Maine issued a preliminary ruling in the state’s favor, ordering that the U.S.D.A. funding be restored and issuing a warning to the Trump administration. “The Federal Defendants are barred from freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with the State’s future federal funding for alleged violations of Title IX without complying with the legally required procedure,” the ruling said.

It was not immediately clear on Friday where the administrative proceeding on the state’s education funding would be held, or when — or whether it would meet the specifications of the court’s order. The Department of Justice is expected to sue the state to try to compel its compliance.

The announcement highlighted some fundamental legal questions underlying many of Mr. Trump’s recent moves on K-12 education, including: Will the courts uphold the administration’s broad interpretation of civil rights law? And how much latitude does the executive branch have to stop the flow of federal funds that have been allocated by Congress?

Next week, a Federal District Court in New Hampshire is scheduled to hold a hearing on whether the administration can follow through on its threat to cut off Title I funds to schools with certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Democratic-run states, teachers’ unions and progressive interest groups, like the A.C.L.U., have said it cannot, filing several federal lawsuits in response. Some education experts have predicted that the question could reach the Supreme Court.

The F.B.I. suspends a bureau employee on Patel’s so-called enemies list.

The F.B.I. declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Auten also declined to comment.

The suspension is likely to raise questions about whether the move was retaliatory, and about how closely Mr. Patel would stick to his promise, made during his confirmation hearing in January, that the agency would rise above partisanship despite pressure from President Trump’s allies to fire employees who took part in investigations that conservatives have condemned.

The suspension of Mr. Auten, who had already been disciplined and questioned in a criminal inquiry, will also likely intensify distrust of Mr. Patel among employees who have watched senior leaders forced out in recent months with no explanation.

Mr. Auten worked on two major investigations that angered Mr. Trump and Mr. Patel, including the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election. He was also involved in analyzing the information found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, a discovery that roiled the 2020 presidential campaign.

Mr. Patel has called the Russia investigation a hoax, and singled out Mr. Auten in his book, “Government Gangsters.” In the book, Mr. Patel claimed that the F.B.I. was trying to “hide and spin” what he called “the Biden family corruption” buried in the laptop, even as agents investigated the matter.

“Government Gangsters” also included a list of 60 names in an appendix called “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State.”

Mr. Auten was among the names listed in the appendix. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Patel denied that it was an enemies list.

“It’s a total mischaracterization,” he told senators. He later added: “There will be no politicization at the F.B.I. There will be no retributive actions taken by any F.B.I., should I be confirmed as F.B.I. director.”

The suspension of Mr. Auten came after he and others had been disciplined for serious mistakes found in the F.B.I.’s applications for a secret surveillance warrant involving a former Trump campaign adviser.

Mr. Auten played an important role in unmasking the primary source behind a dossier of rumors and unproven assertions about Mr. Trump. The surveillance warrant applications relied in part on the dossier that Mr. Auten had examined extensively.

In the wake of the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, Mr. Auten had been suspended for 30 days, people said. After Mr. Patel became director, Mr. Auten was moved out of the counterintelligence division, one of the people said.

In his book, Mr. Patel denounced Mr. Auten.

“Yet just like his superiors, Auten has faced no real accountability in light of these findings,” he wrote. “The fact that Auten was not fired from the F.B.I. and prosecuted for his part in the Russia Gate conspiracy is a national embarrassment.”

The Justice Department’s inspector general found that F.B.I. officials had sufficient reason to open Crossfire Hurricane, and did not find evidence that the inquiry was politically motivated.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” officials’ decision to open the investigation, the report said.

John H. Durham, the special counsel appointed by Mr. Trump to scrutinize the Russia investigation, said in his final report that “as an initial matter, there is no question that the F.B.I. had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” the tip that prompted the investigation.

But Mr. Durham accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias.”

In 2020, The New York Post reported on the laptop once used by Mr. Biden, writing that it contained damning evidence against him and his father, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was running for president.

In his book, Mr. Patel criticized Mr. Auten’s role in the episode, claiming that he tried to “discredit any derogatory information about Hunter Biden by falsely claiming that none of it was true.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Five more big law firms reach deals with Trump to do free legal work.

With the latest round of deals, some of the biggest firms in the legal profession have agreed over the past month to provide a combined $940 million in free legal services to causes favored by the Trump administration, including ones with “conservative ideals.”

Mr. Trump announced the agreements between his administration and the law firms on Friday on Truth Social, the platform owned by his social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group.

Top lawyers from each firm provided a statement to the White House, which was included in the social media posts. Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on negotiations with four of the firms.

The deals were announced during a week in which Mr. Trump talked openly in the Oval Office about using the firms he has struck deals with to help negotiate trade agreements with other countries and even work on coal leasing deals.

Mr. Trump did not specifically mention potential work on trade deals or coal leasing agreements in his social media posts. Rather, the posts said the firms would devote free legal work to things like fighting antisemitism, helping Gold Star families, assisting law enforcement and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.”

The terms are similar to ones Mr. Trump previously announced with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank.

Law firms are settling with the Trump administration to head off executive orders that would make it difficult for them to represent clients with federal contracts or seek government regulatory approvals.But a few firms are fighting Mr. Trump’s executive orders in federal court, claiming the orders are unconstitutional and a form of retaliation for taking positions he doesn’t like. Judges have temporarily stayed the orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block from going into effect.

A fourth firm, Susman Godfrey, was hit with an executive order this week and became the latest firm to take on the Trump administration. Late Friday the firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington seeking to block the order from taking effect.

Lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson are representing Susman in the litigation. Munger is the same firm that helped organize an amicus brief filed by more than 500 law firms in support of Perkins Coie. But only a few large law firms signed on that legal filing.

Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine manufacturer, in a major defamation case against Fox News. The conservative cable news channel agreed to pay $787.5 million to Dominion to resolve the lawsuit. Dominion filed the lawsuit over misinformation the cable network spread about its role in the 2020 election, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly said was stolen from him.

“If President Trump’s Executive Orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes,” Susman’s 66-page complaint begins. “What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal. Put simply, this could be any of us.”

Mr. Trump is going after law firms that have hired attorneys he perceives as his political enemies, represented causes he has opposed or refused to represent people because of their conservative and right-wing political beliefs. Some firms are also being targeted for their hiring practices that advance the principle of having a diverse work force.

The president has said repeatedly that diversity, equity and inclusion policies in hiring are illegal and discriminatory and that he intends to get rid of them. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in what has been seen as a related move, sent letters to 20 law firms last month requesting information about their D.E.I. practices.

Four of the firms that reached deals with Mr. Trump — Kirkland, Latham, Shearman and Simpson Thacher — had each received one of those letters. In settling, Mr. Trump said the E.E.O.C. had agreed not to pursue claims against those four firms. Later in the day, the E.E.O.C. announced a separate settlement with the four firms.

Law professors and others in the legal industry have praised the firms that are fighting the administration while criticizing those that have settled. The critics say the law firms that settle have succumbed to pressure tactics by the administration. And each new settlement only encourages Mr. Trump to become even more emboldened in his demands for free legal work.

The Trump administration seems to believe it is “developing a war chest of legal enlistees or conscripts” to do work for it, said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, who was an author on a recently published paper that called the executive orders unconstitutional retaliatory measures.

“Every kid learns, on the schoolyard, if you cave to a bully they will come back to bully you some more,” said Mr. Koh.