by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)
Think
for
a
minute
about
coercion.
If
another
country
changes
its
trade
policies
in
a
way
that
hurts
the
United
States,
then
the
United
States
—
probably
through
Congressional
action
—
should
be
able
to
respond
by
changing
the
United
States’
trade
policy.
Perhaps
even
the
president,
without
Congressional
approval,
should
be
allowed
to
change
trade
policy,
although
that’s
less
clear.
But
if
another
country
does
something
completely
unrelated
to
trade
—
say,
for
example,
prosecuting
a
former
government
official
for
corruption
—
should
the
president
be
permitted
to
respond
by
changing
U.S.
trade
policy?
That’s
what
President
Donald
Trump
has
done.
Brazil
is
prosecuting
Jair
Bolsonaro
for
crimes
related
to
an
alleged
coup.
Trump
is
unhappy
with
this,
so
he’s
unilaterally
imposed
a
50%
tariff
on
goods
imported
from
Brazil.
Brazil’s
supposed
offense
has
nothing
to
do
with
trade
policy,
but
Trump
thinks
he
can
use
U.S.
trade
policy
as
a
method
of
coercion.
If
Trump
is
right,
that
gives
the
president
unrestrained
power
to
coerce
other
countries
to
do
whatever
the
president
wants.
Trump
doesn’t
like
the
prime
minister
of
Nowhereistan?
A
gazillion
percent
tariffs
until
the
country
changes
prime
ministers!
Why
not?
The
president
can
coerce
any
foreign
country
to
do
anything.
Change
your
focus.
Instead
of
thinking
about
foreign
countries,
think
about
American
states.
State
laws
govern
state
crimes
and
punishments.
But
Trump
recently
decided
that
he
doesn’t
like
cashless
bail
(which
is
kind
of
odd,
since
he
has,
of
course,
repeatedly
been
released
on
cashless
bail).
Although
the
federal
government
has
no
power
over
how
states
administer
bail,
Trump
has
threatened
to
cut
off
federal
funds
from
states
that
don’t
eliminate
cashless
bail.
Trump’s
executive
order
doesn’t
specify
which
federal
funds
will
be
cut
off
from
the
states.
Presumably,
Trump
will
want
to
exercise
maximum
coercion
over
the
states
—
You
allow
cashless
bail?
Eliminate
all
federal
funding
to
the
state!
No
more
federal
highway
money!
No
more
federal
welfare
programs!
—
while
states
will
insist
that
only
funds
related
to
the
bail
system
(or
some
such
thing)
could
be
cut
off.
Trump
is
again
looking
for
a
wide-ranging
power
to
coerce:
If
the
states
don’t
do
what
he
likes
—
change
the
laws
governing
abortion!
change
the
laws
governing
gun
control!
—
the
federal
government
has
the
right
to
cut
off
all
federal
funds.
So
much
for
states’
rights.
Change
your
focus.
Think
about
universities.
If
a
university
is
unlawfully
discriminating
against
some
group
—
diversity
programs
are
illegally
discriminating
against
white
kids;
the
university
is
illegally
permitting
antisemitism
to
go
unchecked
—
then
of
course
the
federal
government
should
be
able
to
cut
off
funds
relating
to
the
illegal
discrimination:
no
more
money
for
diversity
initiatives,
for
example.
But
does
the
federal
government
really
wield
a
blunderbuss
in
this
situation?
The
federal
government
doesn’t
like
what
a
university
is
doing
with
its
diversity
initiatives,
so
the
federal
government
is
allowed
to
cut
off
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
grants
for,
say,
medical
research?
That’s
what
universities
are
facing,
and
it
feels
like
coercion.
How
about
law
firms?
The
federal
government
believes
that
law
firms
are
engaged
in
vexatious
litigation
that
hurts
the
national
interest.
Maybe
the
federal
government
has
some
interest
in
that.
Maybe
the
government
should
litigate
the
cases,
win,
and
ask
the
court
to
impose
sanctions
on
the
offending
law
firm.
But
can
the
government
really
forbid
a
law
firm’s
litigators
from
appearing
in
court
and
refuse
to
approve
mergers
proposed
by
a
firm’s
corporate
clients
to
coerce
the
firm
to
abandon
disfavored
representations?
Trump’s
federal
government
is
trying
to
coerce
the
world:
foreign
governments,
state
governments,
universities,
and
law
firms.
What
comes
next?
Oh!
If
the
federal
government
doesn’t
approve
of
an
individual,
the
federal
government
can
launch
an
investigation
of
that
person.
Just
ask
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James,
or
Gen.
Mark
Milley,
or
special
counsel
Jack
Smith,
or
the
rest
of
’em.
The
cost
of
defending
against
a
federal
investigation,
whether
or
not
any
charges
ultimately
result,
imposes
quite
a
financial
burden.
That’s
pretty
damn
coercive.
Could
it
get
any
worse?
You
betcha.
President
Trump
decided
that
11
Venezuelans
might
be
trafficking
drugs,
so
he
ordered
the
military
to
blow
up
the
boat
they
were
on.
The
U.S.
could
of
course
have
stopped
the
boat
and
arrested
the
people
on
board,
but
that
threatens
mere
time
in
prison.
Blowing
people
to
smithereens,
before
any
charges
are
filed,
is
much
more
coercive.
Could
Trump
order
similar
strikes
against
people
he
deems
to
be
terrorists?
People
he
deems
to
be
drug
traffickers
within
the
United
States?
Anyone
else?
I
understand
that
the
federal
government
is
powerful,
and
the
president
is
a
powerful
guy.
But
does
the
president
have,
and
do
we
really
want
him
to
have,
unfettered
power
to
coerce
anybody,
anywhere,
for
any
reason
at
all?
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].