A lawyer who had a starring role in Donald Trump’s first administration—and his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election—is learning that actions have consequences.

The D.C. Bar’s disciplinary arm has recommended that Jeffrey Clark, a longtime Trump ally who currently works in the Office of Management and Budget, be disbarred for his efforts to help the president try to subvert the 2020 election.

“While dishonesty is always intolerable, the facts here are significantly aggravating to warrant disbarment: [Clark] was prepared to cause the Justice Department to tell a lie about the status of its investigation of an important national issue (the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election),” the Bar’s board wrote in its recommendation. “Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so. [Clark] persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue.”

Clark, the former acting assistant attorney general in the environmental division of Trump’s Department of Justice, was a key player in the president’s attempted coup. Trump unsuccessfully tried to install him as acting attorney general in early 2021, and Clark then tried and failed to pressure Georgia lawmakers into overturning the election results (for which he was briefly indicted, before being deleted as a co-conspirator).

To the D.C. Bar, this behavior is severe enough that Clark should lose his legal license. “He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated,” it wrote.

This recommendation will trigger Clark’s automatic suspension, and will head to the D.C. Court of Appeals for a final determination.

During a Thursday Fox Business appearance, Alabama Senator and gubernatorial candidate Tommy Tuberville announced that he’s introducing a bill to ban international students from Iran, China, and North Korea.

Tuberville recalled attending a recent graduation ceremony whose program, he said, included “40 Chinese nationals [getting] their degree in engineering and cyber,” leading him to the conclusion: “We are funding our own demise.”

“We have to do everything we possibly can to penalize universities that drop the ball on this agenda because if we don’t do that, we are not going to educate our kids,” Tuberville said.

The senator also claimed that international students are displacing American students, who “apply, but they can’t get in because there’s no slots for them, because of all the foreign nationals coming in.” To that end, he said his bill includes provisions to limit the total number of international students, while the focus is to keep students from rival countries out.

“We want to make sure we limit the number that comes in,” he said. “But we surely want to limit our adversaries. We want to do away with Iran, North Koreans, or Chinese nationals getting into this country and learning how to destroy the United States of America and our allies.”

Tuberville’s proposal to exclude students on the basis of national origin is so paranoid and nativist as to be absurd. A flood of North Korean students isn’t exactly a serious concern for the United States, which has, reportedly, not since the 2015–2016 school year welcomed a number of students from the People’s Republic that exceeds the single digits.

It’s also simply untrue that foreign students impede the education of American students, as evidence indicates that they are a great boon to the U.S. higher education system.

As the Brookings Institution notes, international students constitute a small minority of U.S. enrollment while contributing disproportionately to college and university budgets, namely in paying higher tuition. They also greatly support their surrounding communities. Removing international students, then, would hurt the economy, “add much to the trade deficit, harm many college budgets, and badly damage businesses in many college towns.”

Further, by subsidizing the cost of domestic students, “international students actually raise domestic enrollment,” according to a 2017 study by economist Kevin Shih, who analyzed periods where foreign enrollment underwent significant booms and busts. Shih estimates that when enrollment increases by 10 additional international students, domestic enrollment increases by about eight—a pattern that holds true as well for enrollment decreases.

One day before Donald Trump’s worldwide tariffs are slated to go into effect, an appeals court is scrutinizing his use of an “emergency” law to justify the sweeping duties.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the legality of the tariffs—a high-stakes lawsuit, brought by 12 Democrat-led states and five small businesses, which could derail the president’s tariff scheme.

Since February, Trump has justified his tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, a law from 1977 that allows the president to issue economic sanctions in an emergency situation: specifically, to counter an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump’s use of the law allows him to sidestep Congress, which is granted the power to impose tariffs by the Constitution.

He’s the first-ever president to impose tariffs by invoking the emergency law—something many of the appeals judges pointed out.

“It’s just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,” said Judge Timothy Dyk. “It’s really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the whole approach,” he continued.

The act has forced Trump to create so-called emergencies that his tariffs must mitigate. In March, Trump said that the fentanyl emergency was the reason behind his tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. In April, he upped the ante and levied a 10 percent global baseline tariff, naming the emergency in question as the trade deficit.

But one judge, Raymond Chen, pushed back on that reasoning: “Can the trade deficit be an extraordinary and unusual threat when we have had trade deficits for decades?”

Overall, CNN

© New Republic