Friday, February 28, 2025

Jacksonville lobbyist loved, loathed - but respected. (Tia Mitchell, Times-Union, July 11, 2010)

In his interview with Seventh Circuit Judicial Nominating Committee, Ponte Vedra lawyer Zachary Watson Miller identified this man as his mentor in the business of representing developers.  From Florida Times-Union: 

Jacksonville lobbyist loved, loathed - but respected

Lawyer has shaped deals involving the stadium, landfill, Jaguars and zoning.

Tia Mitchell
Zoning expert Harden talks with City Councilman Reggie Brown before a meeting of the Land Use and Zoning Committee. Brown says he and Harden have dinner about once a month.

He is Jacksonville's highest-profile lobbyist, with a reputation for delivering for his equally high-profile clients.

He is also a hot-tempered and cunning strategist who likes to win big, even if it means ticking off the competition.

And he is seen as so powerful that even his political foes won't criticize him publicly.

Paul Harden, a Jacksonville native and son of a former School Board chairman, seems to know everybody and everybody knows him. He makes friends over dinners and rounds of golf, and he makes enemies at the negotiating table.

"He's a sharp-elbow guy," close friend and former Mayor John Delaney said. "He doesn't just want to win badly, he wants to win big."

He does win, often.

The successful Trail Ridge deal with Waste Management? Harden. The continuing, lucrative contract SMG has to operate the city's sports facilities? Harden. The Jaguars' stadium lease with the city? Harden, too.

City Councilman Art Graham compares Harden, 58, to Morgan Freeman's character in "The Shawshank Redemption," who boasts about being a one-stop shop to satisfy all his fellow inmates' vices. Graham said Harden demonstrates that same quality, whether it be helping support a mayor's pet project behind the scenes, getting difficult rezonings approved for clients or negotiating the city's contract with the Jaguars.

"He is a man who can get things done," Graham said.

Harden said Graham's analysis is correct.

"That means I'm effective," he said matter-of-factly.

Networking

Harden, a lawyer, has been lobbying City Hall for the past 25 years. The names change, but he has found a way to strengthen his existing relationships and build new ones.

City Councilman Richard Clark, one of Harden's closest friends on the council, said that's how he outworks the competition.

Back on election night in 2007, Clark was making the rounds at various victory parties, hoping to introduce himself to newly elected council members before state Sunshine laws forbade them from meeting privately. He ran into Harden twice.

"I'm out there trying to build relationships with new guys and people I don't know," Clark said. "Paul was out there working."

Harden's extensive client list is a product of his successes over the years.

He was a lobbyist for Waste Management when it was awarded the Trail Ridge contract in 1991 and has had the company as a client ever since. This year, he again lobbied for - and won - a once-dead settlement deal to allow Waste Management to operate the landfill for another 26 years.

He has been the lobbyist for SMG ever since the city awarded the company a 1992 contract to operate the stadium, arena, baseball grounds and all other sports and entertainment facilities. That contract has been renewed four times since then, keeping SMG from the uncertainty of competitive bidding.

Harden is also the lobbyist for courthouse builder Turner Construction and has been the Jacksonville Jaguars' voice in City Hall since their inception. Then there are the dozens of landowners and developers he has represented over the years on zoning issues, his main area of interest.

Relationship-building is part of the job for all lobbyists but in Jacksonville, nobody is more skilled than Harden. Friends say his brain is always working, and he keeps mental notes of every conversation. He figures out a person's likes and dislikes, wants and needs.

He laughs often and makes friends easily. He can be spitting mad at you on Tuesday and joke about it with you on Wednesday.

"Politics is a business where your adversary might be your best ally in the next vote," Harden said. "So you don't want to burn any bridges."

Delaney, also a fellow lawyer, is one of Harden's best friends. It was Delaney, then the city's chief of staff, and Harden, representing the ownership team, that helped finalize the deal that led to the Jaguars coming to the city. Before then, Harden's angry clashes with the general counsel led to a breakdown in talks.

"Paul Harden can have a bit of an ego and can be a little arrogant," said Delaney, now president of the University of North Florida.

Over the years, Delaney said, he and Harden have had "a few knock-down, drag-outs," but there is a mutual respect and admiration. Delaney describes Harden as a guy whose tough exterior hides a softer side, and said he is "phenomenally loyal to his friends and family."

Mike Saylor, the city's former planning director who has a long history as a consultant on land deals, has known Harden for years. Sometimes the two were on opposing sides of an issue, other times they were on the same team.

Always, Saylor said, Harden is working on an angle.

"He plays his relationships as well as he plays his knowledge of the law and knowledge of the precedents," Saylor said. "He forms pretty close relationships with the people that matter."

Started young

Harden was driven at a young age: He earned a bachelor's degree from University of Florida at age 19 - in less than three years - by taking full course loads every term, even the summer. He obtained a law degree from Florida State University and then worked in Tampa for a year before moving back to his hometown.

Harden was still a young man when he joined Jacksonville's Greene, Greene, Smith and Davenport law firm in 1976. One partner, Thomas Greene, was a powerful City Hall lobbyist.

Harden worked on Jake Godbold's successful mayoral campaign in 1979 and, a year later, Godbold appointed him to the city's Planning Commission. By the time he left the commission in 1984, including a term as its chairman, Harden was lobbying the council on behalf of developers.

"I guess he was a bright young man because he started learning a lot about zoning and he made a career out of that time," Godbold said recently.

A few years later, Greene - known as the go-to guy for companies wanting city contracts - was sent to prison after convictions for mail fraud and lying to banks.

Harden had already ventured out on his own by then, and had begun to replace his former boss as the man companies sought out when trying to get projects approved at the city.

Former City Councilman Matt Carlucci recently said that after being elected in 1987, he initially kept his distance from Harden because of what he heard. But the longer he served, Carlucci said, the more he grew to respect and like the lobbyist.

"He's studied Jacksonville's government and Ordinance Code probably better than most attorneys or any attorneys that I know," Carlucci said. "That's his job to argue on behalf of his clients, and he's very good at it because he knows his facts."

Today, Harden says he splits his time between traditional lobbying and the law. He said he is effective in City Hall because he understands that politics is a transactional business.

"One person wants one thing; one person wants another," he said. "You have to find out a way to get to compromise and a majority vote."

About half of Harden's lobbying is tied to the relatively low-profile sector of land-use issues. But when a big contract is up for council approval, more than likely it involves one of his clients. And they expect Harden to deliver.

Former City Councilman Matt Carlucci recently said that after being elected in 1987, he initially kept his distance from Harden because of what he heard. But the longer he served, Carlucci said, the more he grew to respect and like the lobbyist.

"He's studied Jacksonville's government and Ordinance Code probably better than most attorneys or any attorneys that I know," Carlucci said. "That's his job to argue on behalf of his clients, and he's very good at it because he knows his facts."

Today, Harden says he splits his time between traditional lobbying and the law. He said he is effective in City Hall because he understands that politics is a transactional business.

"One person wants one thing; one person wants another," he said. "You have to find out a way to get to compromise and a majority vote."

About half of Harden's lobbying is tied to the relatively low-profile sector of land-use issues. But when a big contract is up for council approval, more than likely it involves one of his clients. And they expect Harden to deliver.

These contracts - like the recent Trail Ridge deal, worth an estimated $459 million over 26 years - bring attention, both positive and negative.

In the summer of 2008, Mayor John Peyton's staff had negotiated a different contract extension with Waste Management that would have allowed the company to continue operating and put to rest a disagreement about the terms of the initial contract from the early '90s.

Harden's message to the City Council was nowhere near the deferential, almost intimidated, manner that most people use at council meetings.

"Believe me, if you don't pass this [bill], it's retirement for me because we're going to litigate it until the cows come home," he told the Rules Committee members one morning.

Relentless

Even some who had known Harden for years complained about feeling backed in a corner. Councilwoman E. Denise Lee, who has known Harden since the late '70s, let him know it.

"I said, 'Paul, those kinds of statements are arrogant statements,' " Lee recently recalled telling him at the time.

Harden says he wasn't threatening the council but informing them of the facts of the case.

"My job is to provide information to council members on behalf of my clients," he said last month. "That's what lawyers do. I'm an advocate and there's not anything wrong with that."

The council didn't go along. It put the brakes on the approval process to allow for more time to scrutinize the deal. Harden's statements also provided fuel to the opposition, mainly Councilman Jack Webb and Republic Services, in fighting for competitive bidding.

In April 2009, the council rejected the mayor's proposal. Just like Harden promised, Waste Management sued. Roughly a year later, court-ordered mediation resulted in a new settlement deal for council approval that had the same result: Waste Management would continue operating the landfill.

This time, Harden left the cows at home.

He took a more low-key approach and focused on the council members he felt would be most open to supporting the settlement, communicating Waste Management's talking points through telephone conversations or in person.

Meeting as a committee-as-a-whole, the council initially recommended the settlement be rejected, too. But the slim 9-8 margin, and the absence of two council members, left wiggle room for Harden to do what he does best.

Councilman Art Shad, another one of Harden's close friends on the council, even commented after the committee meeting that all Harden had to do was get two more votes, and that he probably could.

One week later, the council voted again on Trail Ridge. This time its action would be binding.

Harden took his usual seat near the front of council chambers. He barely watched the screen as 10 of the council members chose to accept the deal.

In addition to picking up absentee Michael Corrigan's vote, Reggie Brown and Johnny Gaffney switched from "no" to "yes," saying their research the week preceding the vote made them confident the settlement was the best possible deal.

Brown said he has cultivated a business relationship with Harden since joining the council and dines with him about once a month. He said he listens to what Harden has to stay but votes his conscience.

"There is the perception that with Paul he has his henchmen and they are going to do whatever he says," Brown said, "and that's not the case, I know, with me."

Graham, who had voted against the settlement, left the meeting before the controversial vote was taken, citing a scheduling conflict.

(On the other hand, only one councilman, Daniel Davis, switched from "yes" to "no," saying that he decided not to support the settlement because he felt the city had a strong chance of beating Waste Management in court.)

Mystical aura

Shad said his friendship with Harden - they talk to each other at least weekly - had nothing to do with his strong support of the Waste Management deal over the two-year fight or on any other issue that Harden champions.

Much of the criticism about Harden, Shad said, comes from jealousy and envy. Local bloggers and the media have created a "mystical aura" about Harden that simply isn't true, he said.

"He is a darn good attorney," Shad said. "And, at the end of the day, nothing, nothing could take the place of raw talent and knowledge and expertise."

Harden said he often feels vilified in the media and blogs, especially when he is accused of having too much sway among the 19 council members.

"I know it's not true, so I try not to let it upset me," he said. "That's not the worse things they say."

Even when friendships are factored in, Harden doesn't always get his way.

For years, Harden served as Councilman Ronnie Fussell's personal attorney. However, Fussell was one of the more vocal opponents to the Trail Ridge deal, which became an issue during his year as council president.

Though Lee and Harden have known each other for more than 30 years, their relationship has been somewhat strained since she returned to the council in 2007.

They met in 1979, when both worked on Godbold's campaign. Years ago, Harden helped Lee when the state said she didn't file financial disclosures on time.

Lee said she has honored their friendship by leaving her door open to Harden when he wants to discuss his clients' projects. However, after disagreeing with him on a zoning issue two years ago, she wondered if he expected more.

"The feeling I got is: If I don't agree with him, it must mean that I am not for him," she said.

Lee said she and Harden have remained friends despite the rough spots because she is unafraid to go toe-to-toe with him, including on Trail Ridge. She voted to oppose the Waste Management deal both times.

Occasional losses

Other losses have been more high-profile. The most recent example was the council's surprising and contentious presidential election in April.

Well before the new year, then-Vice President Webb had obtained written commitments from 15 of his colleagues pledging their support for him, and he had the verbal support of a handful others. Yet on the morning of the election vote, one of those written commitments - Stephen Joost - called Webb to announce an unprecedented, last-minute challenge.

Never before had another member entered the race on the day of the vote. And it just so happened to be against Webb, who was the council's most vocal opponent to the Trail Ridge deal over the two-year debate.

Webb won by one vote, but he lost the support of several colleagues who had made written commitments, including Clark, Brown, Gaffney and Shad.

Both Harden and Webb declined to discuss what it occurred, saying they wanted to move forward. Joost won't say if Harden encouraged him to run, but he wouldn't say he didn't.

"Regardless of who was advising me, at the end of the day it was my decision," he said.

After the Trail Ridge rejection in April 2009, Harden was also forced to withdraw a San Marco zoning application he was pushing on behalf of his brother.

The Colonial Manor Community Association accused Harden of not properly notifying residents of the proposal to change the brother's home from residentially zoned to commercial. It clashed with the surrounding homes, they argued.

Shad, whose district includes the property, initially supported the application even after Harden admitted to some procedural mistakes. But the Colonial Manor residents complained loudly and wouldn't go away, and Shad eventually got Harden to withdraw.

Kris Barnes, a School Board member at the time, had begun attending community meetings with other neighbors. She said she got the impression that Harden's relationship with the city's Planning Department was too comfortable.

"He can just walk in and do anything he wants with all of them," she said recently. "He has everybody's ears."

Saylor said another one of Harden's strengths is that he has studied the planning department and trends among the building community, which helps him come up with strategies for getting deals approved around the city.

"He has a tremendous command of the marketplace," Saylor said.

Barnes said she doesn't begrudge Harden for becoming such a successful lobbyist, but she wonders if taxpayers sometimes lose out when he wins.

"Whether it's Paul Harden or anyone," she said "when you get a relationship that is so cozy with everyone who is supposed to be making the decisions about your issues coming before them, it doesn't work."

tia.mitchell@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4425




Thursday, February 27, 2025 SJC County Attorney Hiring Committee Meeting, 9 am, 500 Sebastian View, County Auditorium

Thanks to our SJC Commissioners for holding an open public meeting on attorney hiring. The ancien regime preferred such meetings be held in an upstairs County conference room, without TV coverage. You can attend the February 27, 2025 SJC County Attorney Hiring Committee Meeting, 9 am, 500 Sebastian View, County Auditorium,

UPDATE:  This meeting is not being video recorded. It is not being broadcast on SJC Government TV. Neither was an earlier committee recorded or broadcast.  That is so wrong. 

Wonder why?

SJC Government TV PR employee Kyle Logan was cold and condescending, refusing to answer who decided and why.

We have a $1,000,000+ tv broadcast operation. We have eight (8) FTE (full-time equivalent) employees in PR in St. Johns County 

The meeting is in our County Auditorium.  The two Commissioners on the Committee assumed, as did I, that the meeting would  be videotaped and broadcast, it is neither being broadcast nor videotaped.  When not?

We the People expect better from our leaders.

Ms. Desiree Woroner started working as HR Director and Risk Management Director for St. Johns County December 2, 2024, according to a recruiter website, https://www.cb-asso.com/Newsmanager/ar321.aspx?Id=28

December 17, 2024 Commission video here, with County Administrator Joy Andrews, Ms. DESIREE WORONER and Ed Slavin (that would be me), here: https://stjohnscountyfl.new.swagit.com/videos/322850 (item 9).

What was our new HR Director's role in having this secretive meeting, with no video broadcast and no taping?  Do Ms. Woroner's reflect our values?  Why did County Administrator JOY ANDREWS present Ms. WORONER for confirmation vote after she went to work for St. Johns County.

County Administrator Joy Andrews claims to believe in "transparency and efficiency."

Believe it or not!


St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners

Human Resources Director

SALARY

$100,000.00 - $151,000.00 Annually

LOCATION

St. Augustine, FL

JOB TYPE

Regular Full-time

JOB NUMBER

2023-01649

DEPARTMENT

Human Resources

OPENING DATE

04/24/2024

CLOSING DATE

5/24/2024 11:59 PM Eastern

FLSA

Exempt

BARGAINING UNIT 

NA

PAY GRADE

25

Position Description

St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners is seeking a motivated, experienced, energetic, collaborative, and innovative leader to become the next Director of Human Resources. The Director should have experience in all aspects of human resources to continue the effort to move the organization forward. The ideal candidate will possess a high degree of integrity and will see things as they might /should be and not just as they are. As such, he/she will be a visionary who will be able to inspire others to visualize a better future and then to act on that vision.

 

To be considered for this position please email e-mail your cover letter and resume to Recruit33@cb-asso.com by May 24th. Please apply ASAP, resumes will be screened as they arrive. Questions should be directed to Scott Krim at (801) 628-8364 or Ron Williams at (305) 388-8990.

Examples of Duties

The Human Resources Department supports, educates, and advises management by gathering facts, diagnosing problems, providing solutions, and offering objective assistance and guidance on employee-related issues. The department recruits qualified applicants for vacant staff positions. To retain qualified employees, it strives to maintain competitive compensation and benefit programs. Human Resources also assists in the development, implementation, and coordination of employment-related policies and programs, employee and labor relations, compensation administration, benefits management, and training and education programs.

Minimum Qualifications

The ideal candidate will have a demonstrated track record of accomplishments and experience with all aspects of human resources. She/he will have a bachelor’s degree in human resource management, human resources, or a related field. Priority will be given to those who have a master’s degree in a similar field. The individual will have at least five to ten years of experience in human resources. Experience in the public sector is important but not mandatory. We are looking for the right leader and partner with the right skill set wherever that person may be.


To learn more about this position and what St. Johns County has to offer please visit the following link http://www.cb-asso.com/newsmanager/userfiles/file/Active_Recruitments/St_Johns_County_HRD_Recruitment_Brochure.pdf (Download PDF reader)

Supplemental Information

St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners is a drug free workplace and equal opportunity employer.

All employment actions are taken without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, handicap, disability, marital status, national origin, veteran status, or genetic information.

Benefits



Please visit St. Johns County's Benefits site for more detailed information: https://ec.sjcfl.us/home/Benefits

For employees hired on or after January 1, 2024, benefits will become effective the first of the month following 30 days from their date of hire.
 


.

Trump Team Tightens Control Over Government Lawyers Who Might Say ‘No’ (Charlie Savage, NY Times, February 27, 2025))

The great American diplomat and corporate lawyer Eliu Root, the late Republican Secretary of War and Secretary of State, said the most important thing that a lawyer could tell  an organization was, "You're damned fools and you should stop."  In contrast, DJT's appointees can't stand criticism. They want wimpy lawyers.  They want cat's paws.  We don't need any more cat''s paws. From The New York Times:

Trump Team Tightens Control Over Government Lawyers Who Might Say ‘No’

At the Justice Department and the Pentagon, the administration is curtailing the ability of lawyers to raise internal objections to the president’s use of power.

Listen to this article · 11:24 min Learn more
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former midlevel Army infantry officer, has long exhibited a hostile view toward military lawyers.Credit...Paul Ratje for The New York Times

After President Trump lost the 2020 election, his allies thought about what to do differently if he returned to power. One lesson from his first term, they decided, was that government lawyers, even very conservative Republican political appointees, had frequently raised legal objections to ideas he or his White House advisers put forward.

If they got another shot, they said in campaign-era interviews, they would install much more permissive gatekeepers. Now, a month into a term that has been defined by Mr. Trump’s radical challenges to the basic structure of government, his administration is moving aggressively to curb a critical internal check: independent legal thinking.

His appointees have swiftly cleared the Justice Department’s top ranks of career lawyers, even as Mr. Trump stocked leading posts with his own defense attorneys. His aides sidelined the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing its traditional role of vetting draft executive orders and giving it no acting chief. Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi added to the purge by firing the top lawyer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

This subjugation of lawyers has now extended to the Pentagon. Late last Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top judge advocates general for the military. As three-star uniformed lawyers, they give independent and nonpolitical advice about the international laws of war and domestic legal constraints Congress has imposed on the armed forces.

Image
President Trump declared that officials in the executive branch may not think for themselves about what the law means, saying they must accept whatever he or Attorney General Bondi says is legal.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Speaking to reporters this week, Mr. Hegseth appeared dismissive of the role of the senior uniformed lawyers, who serve fixed terms in nonpartisan roles and do not normally turn over when a new president takes office. Mr. Hegseth claimed none of them were “well suited” and said he did not want people who “exist to be roadblocks to anything that happens in their spots.”

The ousters and Mr. Hegseth’s explanation have raised alarms among retired JAG officers. They are trained to try to help commanders find lawful ways to achieve their objectives, they say, meaning it is rare for them to say “no” — but sometimes “no” is the only answer.

The rapid dismissal of independent lawyers across the government evokes a line from Shakespeare, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Some, like Justice John Paul Stevens in a 1985 opinion, have interpreted it to mean that “disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Hegseth was asked about a similar warning by a law professor, who said the administration’s moves could signal preparations to break the law. He called that critique “hyperbole,” insisting that removing the judge advocates general was about finding “fresh blood,” not permitting illegality.

But Mr. Hegseth, a former midlevel Army infantry officer, has long exhibited a hostile view toward military lawyers. He has insulted them in his memoir as “jagoffs,” questioned whether it made sense to obey the Geneva Conventions and blamed them for what he saw as unduly restrictive rules of engagement on the battlefield.

Mr. Hegseth appeared to not have understood that top commanders, not their legal advisers, decide what standards to set. Battling insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, commanders sometimes adopted more restrictive limits on opening fire for a strategic reason: to reduce civilian casualties that fueled anti-American sentiment among local populations.

Specifically, Mr. Hegseth fired Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III of the Army and Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer of the Air Force. The position of their counterpart in the Navy was already vacant because the vice admiral at the time, Christopher French, abruptly retired after Mr. Trump won the election.

Mr. Hegseth, defending the dismissals, also made clear that he sought to impose greater political control in selecting their successors, and that they would hold a lower rank.

In his Fox News interview, he criticized the existing process for picking the senior military lawyers, which is required by law — strongly implying the administration will not follow it in filling their posts.

But Mr. Hegseth misstated the process, claiming that the top judge advocates general have traditionally “been chosen by each other.” In fact, boards of military officers who are mostly not lawyers recommend nominees, according to retired JAGs.

The retired Lt. Gen. Christopher F. Burne, the top Air Force lawyer from 2014 to 2018, said such boards typically feature eight to 12 three- or four-star officers, and only one — the current top judge advocate general who is nearing retirement — is a lawyer.

Mr. Hegseth has also said the next top JAG officers would be only two-star officers, demoting the positions from the three-star ranks they have had since 2008, when Congress elevated them to that level. Lawmakers opted to do so to give the voice of the rule of law greater heft in decision-making at the Pentagon, aiming to bolster the chances that the lawyers would be invited to key meetings and given seats at the table.

Image
Federal agents facing off with civilians protesting the killing of George Floyd in 2020. Officials resisted Mr. Trump’s desire to deploy the military against Americans during the protests.Credit...Brandon Bell for The New York Times

The Trump administration’s bulldozing of experienced government lawyers comes as Mr. Trump has been violating statutes enacted by Congress, apparently in the hope that the ensuing deluge of lawsuits will give the Supreme Court opportunities to strike them down and expand his power.

The president has purged board members of independent agencies, inspectors general and civil servants, defying laws constraining such firings. He has also dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and folded its remnants into the State Department, despite a law that says it shall exist as an independent entity, and refused to spend funds Congress appropriated.

During the 2024 campaign, he and his advisers laid out other radical policies they had in sight. One in particular may be relevant to the curbing of top military lawyers: Mr. Trump repeatedly said he wanted to use the armed forces on domestic soil to fight crime in cities controlled by Democrats, hunt for unauthorized immigrants and put down “riots.”

The Posse Comitatus Act generally makes it a crime to use the military for law enforcement purposes, but the Insurrection Act creates an exception under some circumstances. Still, the prospect of deploying the military against Americans is fraught. Military and law enforcement officials resisted Mr. Trump’s desire to do so during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.

Few of the president’s aides better reflect his view of presidential power than Russell T. Vought, who, as in Mr. Trump’s first term, oversees the Office of Management and Budget and is a chief proponent of consolidating White House control in the executive branch. During the interregnum, Mr. Vought led a pro-Trump think tank whose work included establishing a rationale for why it would be lawful to deploy troops on U.S. soil, including to suppress protests that Mr. Trump deems to be riots.

Image
Russell T. Vought, who oversees the Office of Management and Budget, is a chief proponent of consolidating White House control in the executive branch.Credit...Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times

In a 2023 speech, a video of which was obtained by ProPublica, Mr. Vought explained that his think tank was trying to develop alternative and more permissive legal advice for the next president. “Most of the time in the Oval Office we would put forward some, some policy solution, and then we’d have the lawyers come in and say: ‘It’s not legal. You can’t do that. That would overturn this precedent. There’s a state law against that,’” he recalled.

Mr. Vought continued: “We’re trying to build a shadow Office of Legal Counsel so that when a future president says, ‘What legal authorities do I need to shut down the riots?’ we want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community come in and say, ‘That’s an inappropriate use of what you’re trying to do.’”

Mr. Trump has adopted a defiant posture toward the blizzard of lawsuits his actions have already spurred, declaring on social media that “he who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” His bearing dovetails with a concerted effort by his inner circle to advance a sweeping view of presidential power, the so-called unitary executive theory.

Proponents of that ideology want the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution — contrary to a 1935 precedent — to deny Congress the right to pass laws that limit the president’s total control of the executive branch. That would include ending its ability to create independent agencies that the president does not directly control and to impose limits on his ability to summarily fire any executive branch official at will.

In an executive order instructing independent agencies to submit to White House supervision last week, Mr. Trump declared that officials in the executive branch may not think for themselves about what the law means, saying they must accept whatever he or Ms. Bondi says is legal.

“The president and the attorney general’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties,” the order said.

Emil Bove III, a former criminal defense lawyer to Mr. Trump who is now the acting deputy attorney general, expressed a similar sentiment after he demanded that the U.S. attorney in Manhattan drop corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. He left open the possibility of later reviving the case.

Image
Emil Bove III, the acting deputy attorney general, told a U.S. attorney that she did not have the “discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected president and a Senate-confirmed attorney general.”Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York Times

Mr. Bove said the case prevented Mr. Adams from devoting his “full attention and resources” to accomplishing the president’s immigration objectives. In refusing the order, the interim U.S. attorney, Danielle Sassoon, cast it as an unconstitutional use of prosecutorial power to coerce Mr. Adams into carrying out a particular political agenda.

Accepting Ms. Sassoon’s resignation, Mr. Bove made an extraordinary declaration: She was the one who had violated the Constitution by daring to suggest that she had “discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected president and a Senate-confirmed attorney general.”

A similar dispute with judge advocates general played out in the administration of President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, foreshadowing the broader effort now underway in the Trump era.

Politically appointed civilian lawyers in the Bush administration had embraced a broad view of the powers the Constitution purportedly gives the president as commander in chief. Mr. Bush, they said, could lawfully direct the military, when handling wartime detainees, to ignore the Geneva Conventions and domestic laws on matters like military commissions and torturing prisoners.

The top JAGs strongly resisted, leading the Bush team to claim that they were bound to accept the Justice Department’s legal interpretations. The team also cut the uniformed lawyers out of deliberations, then tried to change military rules to subordinate them to the politically appointed civilian general counsels of their services.

In response, Congress passed laws in 2004 that say it is illegal for anyone at the Pentagon to interfere with their ability “to give independent legal advice” to the secretaries and chiefs of staff of their services. Those laws remain on the books.

John Ismay contributed reporting.

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. More about Charlie Savage