WIRTW #753: the 'autocracy' edition

"Politics don't belong on LinkedIn."

I've been seeing that sentiment a lot lately in the comments on my posts about what's happening to our country.

And I get it. Politics for the sake of politics probably belongs on other platforms. But in today's interconnected world, the lines between politics, society, and business are more blurred than ever. This isn't politics for the sake of politics. This is about defending the democratic foundations that underpin a functioning society—one in which businesses can operate with stability, the rule of law is respected, and lawyers and law firms can serve clients within a system that values justice, accountability, and fairness.

Take, for example, the latest report from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, which concludes that the U.S. is on the verge of losing its status as a democracy. If current trends continue, we could soon find ourselves grouped with countries like Hungary, India, and Turkey—nations that still technically hold elections, but where the outcomes are about as surprising as the ending of a Hallmark Christmas movie.

For those unfamiliar, V-Dem is one of the leading global democracy trackers. It measures things like election integrity, press freedom, and judicial independence. Their latest report places the U.S. firmly in the "trending poorly" category. We're sliding away from being a true democracy and rapidly approaching what experts call "electoral autocracy"—a polite way of saying the system still exists, but it's rigged enough that those in power don't have to worry too much about losing.

According to V-Dem, we're already deep into democratic decline. Trump has expanded presidential power by pardoning Capitol rioters and installing loyalists in key positions, undermined democratic institutions by targeting independent agencies and the press, and aligned with autocratic tendencies by distancing us from our traditional allies and global democratic norms.

If we don't pull the emergency brake soon (as in, within the next six months), we may end up looking back on this moment the way people felt watching the final episode of Game of Thrones—realizing too late that the good days were already behind us.

This isn't a left vs. right issue. It's not about partisanship. And it's not about politics. It's about democracy.

And for professionals on a platform like LinkedIn, these conversations aren't just acceptable, they're essential. The health of our democracy directly affects my business—lawyering. As a lawyer who works within—and deeply values—the rule of law, these issues are not abstract. They impact my business, my clients, and the systems on which I rely every day.

That's why I write about them. And it's why I'll keep doing it no matter how many people slide into my comments to tell me, "Politics don't belong on LinkedIn."

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Teen employment is about education, not filling low-wage labor gaps

I'm a firm believer in the value of teenagers holding part-time jobs.

My first was as a mobile DJ, spinning records at Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, weddings, and sweet 16 parties. I also bussed tables in a nursing home dining room and unloaded giant rolls of fabric from trucks at a warehouse. Each job taught me about hard work, punctuality, taking direction, and dealing with people. They also taught me the value of money and the importance of earning my own spending cash.

That kind of experience is invaluable. It builds character, work ethic, and confidence. It's why both of my kids work, even though most of their friends do not. Just because I can provide walking-around money doesn't mean I should. If my daughter wants to drive a car, she'd better have the money to put gas in it and help cover the insurance. That's part of my responsibility as a parent—getting them ready for adulthood.

But what we're seeing now in some states (including Ohio) is something very different.

A teachable moment on digital communication security

An editor at The Atlantic was accidentally added to a high-level Signal group chat where Trump administration officials were planning military strikes in Yemen.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist, in a chat with top government officials, while they were actively discussing where and when to launch missiles.

It's an appalling breach of national security. It’s also a teachable moment for employers.

If the highest of federal officials can accidentally include a reporter in a thread outlining imminent military action, your company's employees can accidentally include the wrong person in a message about a client, a deal, a product launch, or a sensitive HR issue.

WIRTW #752: the 'this is 40' edition

"Could the President decide that he wasn't going to appoint or allow to remain in office any heads of agencies over 40 years old?"

"I think that that would be within the President’s constitutional authority under the removal power."

That exchange took place earlier this week between Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur during proceedings over the termination of board members from two independent federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The claim that Trump has the constitutional authority to fire employees based on their age is appalling on its own. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects employees 40 and older, has plenty to say about that claim.

Even more disturbing, however, are the broader implications of the government's argument. Replace "over 40" with "Black," "female," "gay," "lesbian," "transgender," "Muslim," "Jewish," "disabled," or any other protected class. By McArthur's reasoning, those terminations would be just as lawful under Trump's "constitutional removal power." The government is arguing that Trump has the constitutional authority to remake the federal workforce into one only comprised of while, male, cisgender, under 40, non-disabled, Christians.

That argument isn't just legally dubious—it's a direct attack on the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination that underpin our society and our democracy. If accepted, it would open the door to a federal workforce shaped entirely by a President's personal biases, rather than merit, experience, or the law. The Constitution does not grant any President unchecked power to purge employees based on protected characteristics. This isn't about removal authority. It's about whether the rule of law still applies, even when the President finds it inconvenient to his agenda.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

EEOC issues guidance on "DEI-related discrimination," but doesn't bother to define it

What is "DEI-related discrimination at work?" No one knows, including the EEOC.

Late yesterday, the EEOC released two new policy documents aimed at eliminating "unlawful DEI" in the workplace: What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work and What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work (the latter even available as a poster-sized PDF).

The most revealing line appears in the opening sentence of the "What You Should Know" document: 

"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a broad term that is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Of course it's undefined, because DEI is not illegal.

This is what a constitutional crisis looks like

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." – Chief Justice John Roberts

Translation: If you don't like a court ruling, you appeal. You don't ignore it. You don't retaliate against the judge. And you don't call for their impeachment.

And yet… here we are.

Yes, segregation is still illegal, and also amoral

Image via wiki commons, cc license

I can't believe I have to say this in 2025, but here we are … it's illegal and amoral to have racially segregated facilities in your business.

Why you shouldn't hate lawyers (or at least not all of us)

The LinkedIn comments on my recent post about Donald Trump targeting the Perkins Coie law firm really caught me off guard. I expected some debate and pushback. What I didn't expect, however, was the level of vitriol directed at lawyers and the legal profession in general. The anger, the contempt, the full-blown hatred, just for people doing their jobs.

I get it. Lawyers aren't winning any popularity contests. We're perceived somewhere between used car salesmen and that guy who takes up two spots in the parking lot. The lawyer jokes never stop. ("What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start." "Why don’t sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy." I've heard them all.)