If the mob were doing what President Donald Trump is doing, we’d call it a shakedown. By way of several executive orders, he has accused some of the largest law firms in America of unlawful misconduct and, on his own, determined they violated the law and issued punishment. But if the firms capitulate to his demands, they won’t be punished.

Joining us in this discussion is our friend and fellow lawyer, Jim Meaney.

The targeted firms are guilty of simply representing causes Trump can’t stand and represent some of the largest businesses in America, many of which do business with the federal government. These firms are given a choice: either do legal work for free—for groups that Trump likes—or be barred from entering federal buildings and lose their security clearances, while the government terminates its contract with their clients.

What’s the misconduct? Trump accuses the Paul Weiss firm of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Cioe firm of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”

What did Paul Weiss do? A partner in the firm brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp.

What’s going on here is part of a much bigger plan—a unified attack on everything Trump hates. He is attacking universities and free thought. He is attacking the judiciary by approving the idea of impeaching judges who have ruled against his immigration policies. He’s dismantling multiple federal agencies.

At last count, nine firms have capitulated and struck deals with Trump. Four have filed suit in federal court and attacked his executive orders and have been successful in the early stages of litigation. In street parlance, we have nine “cavers” and four “fighters.”

The issue is, don't law firms have an obligation to see beyond themselves, to see beyond their own interest, and to see beyond their clients’ interests when the system itself is at risk? Nine firms have said no. Four have said yes.

Almost 200,000 Franklin County residents experience poverty every year. That’s enough to fill the Ohio State University football stadium twice. These residents face myriad challenges, among them: medical debt, lack of access to healthcare, adequate and affordable housing, and affordable childcare.

Danielle Sidner, CEO of Rise Together Innovation Institute, explains that RISE is on a mission to harness the collective power of people and systems to overcome structural racism in Franklin County that contribute to poverty. RISE was created by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and business and community stakeholders and seeks to achieve equity for everyone.

Danielle talks with us about the challenges low-income residents face, but let’s look at just one issue here: medical debt. Low-income residents are ham-strung by medical debt they can’t afford to pay, and for fear of incurring more, they don’t see a doctor when they need to, which means they end up having worse health outcomes. And, of course, not seeing a doctor can mean an illness, which means time away from work and the loss of employment.

During the pandemic, we saw many organizations coming together and looking at innovative ways to relieve some of this debt. Locally, the Ohio Hospital Association in collaboration with the City of Columbus and some others, helped pay the medical debt of low-income residents and then forgave the debt.

Based on a study by Kaiser Permanente, once individuals are relieved of that debt, they go back to the doctor and then live healthier lives. They can contribute to society in the way that we all desire. But the process of medical forgiveness is largely a function of nonprofits, and while it works well for a limited number of people, it’s not a solution that remedies problems with our healthcare system

Want to learn more about RISE? Visit its website at https://www.rtiico.org/

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.

Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.

Court challenges to Trump’s policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.

The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump’s agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk’s team access to sensitive federal data.

Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12

Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.

Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term.

Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.

Most Americans go to church expecting to hear about salvation, morality and scripture. They don't anticipate hardball political endorsements. But some churches thrive on delivering politics from the pulpit.

Sure, pastors are citizens, too. And so in other venues, such as op-eds, blogs, books, and other places of influence, a pastor may speak his mind. Even so, he must jealously guard that influence and always speak winsomely. As a gospel minister, he shouldn’t make politics more important than his pastoral duties.

The tax code prevents religious institutions from serving as political machines, a concept in keeping with the separation of church and state our founding fathers envisioned. Pastors cannot make declarations to favor or oppose any candidate from the pulpit. They cannot take money from the collection plate and give it to support a candidate. And if they want to participate in any partisan activity in their personal capacity, they must make sure it is done in a manner indicating it is separate from their religious institution.

The Rev. Dr. Timothy C. Ahrens began his ministry as Senior Minister of First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in downtown Columbus on January 23, 2000. A church known for its witness to social justice since its birth as an abolitionist congregation in 1852, Rev. Ahrens is the fifth consecutive senior minister from Yale Divinity School and is a lifelong member of the United Church of Christ.

Rev. Ahrens is a 1980 graduate of Macalester College with a double major in Religious Studies and Political Science. Since January 2000, under his leadership, First Church has doubled in membership during an era when seven downtown churches have closed their doors. Rev. Ahrens earned his Doctor of Ministry degree from Chicago Theological Seminary in May 2015. His thesis was entitled: “Young and Growing Stronger: Creating a Model of 21st Century Prophetic Witness Leaders with a New Generation.” He is currently working on two books.

The judicial system moves at glacial speed, and it isn’t inclined to accept that it’s flawed. Its shortcomings are most glaring with criminal cases.

If a convicted person is able to come upon new evidence that wasn’t available during the trial, no matter how significant the evidence may be, the process of getting a new trial is slow and doubtful. There’s no guarantee a new trial will be granted.

The first step is for the trial court judge to just agree to a hearing on whether a new trial is warranted. And judges have the discretion to deny that hearing. Shouldn’t it be mandatory that a hearing on new evidence be granted?

Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly has been an advocate for improving the system. He questions why prosecutors oppose a mandatory hearing. “They should welcome legislation like this because if the claim doesn't have any merit, they can demonstrate that at the hearing. So it's not something that should be feared.”

Justice Donnelly also advocates a more transparent approach to plea agreements. Generally, these discussions are held with the attorneys and the judge in the judge’s chambers. No record is made, and the judge is not bound by anything agreed to by the attorneys. So, while the attorneys may think they reached an agreement on sentencing and that the judge is onboard with their agreement, the judge can award something completely different at the sentencing hearing.

Perhaps worse is the disparity that exists in sentencing. “With the same lawyers and the same facts, you can conduct a sentencing hearing and walk out with an outcome of probation,” Justice Donnelly explains. “You could take those same lawyers and walk 15 feet across the hall in front of another judge, do it again, and have an outcome of 30, 40, 50 years in prison. And that's just a fact.”

Two hours before Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce was to be the keynote speaker at the Columbus VA annual MLK lunch, an organizer told Mr. Boyce he could not mention DEI topics or anything deemed "politically charged" due to President Donald Trump's executive orders limiting DEI in the federal government. Unwilling to compromise his values, Kevin withdrew from the event.

“It was an insult to demand that I restrict my comments to not include equity and inclusion, I can’t separate diversity from the memory of Dr. King,”

Kevin Boyce believes that the opposite of poverty is justice. With funding provided by Franklin County Board of Commissioners and the City of Columbus, the Rise Together Innovation Institute is on a mission to harness the collective power of people and systems to disrupt structural racism and issues of poverty.

Kevin’s father was killed when he was just 7 years old. He credits his mother and grandmother for inspiring his success – and thanks teachers, coaches and his grandmother for convincing a judge to give him a stern warning, not time in juvenile detention, after a street fight landed him in court. He was 16. The brawl began with Kevin defending a bullied friend but ended with a charge of aggravated rioting. His unblemished record, accolades from teachers and coaches and a heart-felt letter from grandmother, resulted in a second chance.

Today, Kevin's oldest son attends Brown University on a scholarship. “When I think that I grew up in a house that didn’t always have electricity or running water, and now I have a son attending an Ivy League school, I hope I can use my abilities to help other kids get the opportunities they need to succeed,’’ he said.

Kevin became the first in his family to earn a college degree – a bachelor’s degree from the University of Toledo. It’s there he met political science professor Jack Ford, who would later serve as minority leader of the Ohio House of Representatives. Seeing Kevin’s affinity for public policy and passion to improve his community, Ford talked Kevin into coming to Columbus with him. He eventually rose to become Ford’s chief of staff.

There’s an old English song, “It’s the rich what gets the pleasure. It's the poor what gets the pain.” The song holds true today. We talk with Bill LaFayette, the owner of Regionomics, about the expanding wealth gap in America.

In 1980, the income of one percent of Americans was 23 times that of the other 90%. In 2022, the income of the top one percent was 69 times the income of the bottom 90%. In 1965, CEO compensation at the 350 largest publicly traded firms was 21 times the typical worker's compensation. In 2023, CEO compensation was 290 times a typical worker’s compensation.

Some of the big differences between then and now was a much higher tax rate and more economic regulation. And then, things changed. Big business argued it was being hamstrung by regulations and persuaded Congress to loosen those regulations. Plus, we saw the birth of the trickledown theory, which benefitted the wealthy and did nothing for those of low income. The rich got richer, and the poor got left behind.

Contributing to wealth inequality is the legacy left by discrimination. Low-income neighborhoods, largely populated by minorities, were redlined by banks, making it impossible to buy homes and accumulate wealth. Though redlining was declared unlawful in the 1960s, its vestiges remain. The neighborhoods that were subjected to redlining are often the same neighborhoods that remain impoverished today.

Politicians don’t help. They’re influenced by those who can write checks, a luxury well beyond those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Adding to the problem: low-income workers are often maligned as either lazy or living off the government dole, when, in reality, many are disadvantaged because of their zip code; they live in neighborhoods that lack resources, opportunities, safety and other benefits most of take for granted.

Listen to our conversation with Bill LaFayette.

With billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos circling in President Trump’s orbit, we are witnessing a new age of extremely wealthy business owners seeking to expand their influence on the government. The robbers barons of the late 19th century—JP Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie—had nothing on these fellows.

As we moved into the mid-20th century, the wealthy wanted to hide their wealth—as if they were like everyone else. When Fortune magazine first published its list of the wealthiest Americans in the 1970s, the people listed weren’t happy about it. They wanted that information kept private.

Things are different now. Society, it seems, is on a new wave of revering people of great wealth, and wealth is seen as an indicator of wisdom and intellect, and men like Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy act as if they know everything, even when it comes to running the federal government.

But the difference between running a business and running the government is huge. With a business, there is one goal: profitability. With government comes the obligation of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It's rare to see a business person who can make that kind of transition.

Men like Musk and tech moguls Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen exhibit a libertarian ideology. They seem to think they don’t owe anything to anybody, never mind how they may have made their money or who helped them get their start. And they don’t want to be hampered in any way in how they do business, and so they resent government interference.

These titans of business are poised to exert their influence in ways we haven’t seen before. Just take a look at who was seated closest to President Trump during his second inauguration.

Listen to our conversation with Steve Conn, professor of history at Miami University.