Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Saturday paper noted, under the heading "Developments," that President Donald Trump had rescinded an executive order "targeting a prominent international law firm after it pledged to review its hiring practices and to provide tens of millions of dollars [$40 million, to be precise] in free legal services to support certain White House initiatives" ("Trump rescinds order targeting top law firm," March 22). The note identifies the law firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton. To be clear, Paul Weiss is a mega law firm of long standing, and well known throughout the legal world and beyond. More needs to be said.

There has been no hint of legal wrongdoing by Paul Weiss, including in its outreach employment practices. To the contrary, the firm has a well-regarded reputation for ethical leadership. The obvious goal of the executive order was to dissuade Paul Weiss from taking on cases challenging the likely unlawful actions of the Trump administration. The firm capitulated to Trump's demands.

There is nothing more important to a law firm than its independence from outside forces. I know from professional experience. The first was in the Watergate period. Our firm (including me as the lead associate) represented the Democratic National Committee in a civil lawsuit filed within days after the June 1972 break-in. At that time we were a small firm; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was a major client. Reacting to White House pressure, the Teamsters advised that it would terminate our representation unless we gave up representing the DNC. The firm did not flinch. It advised in no uncertain terms that it did not allow clients to dictate who it took on as clients. The Teamsters went elsewhere. The second time was in 1981, when we took on the representation of John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Hinckley's cause was not popular. We took it on anyway. (Mr. Hinckley was acquitted by reason of insanity.)

In capitulating to Trump and sacrificing its independence, Paul Weiss has more than embarrassed the legal profession. It has sent the message that one of the strongest law firms in this country is unwilling to stand up for itself. I had hoped never to see such a day. It is sad.

Alan Galbraith, Bloomington

The writer is a retired attorney and former mayor of St. Helena, Calif.

•••

On Saturday as I read my newspaper I found confirmation of a story posted to Facebook. It was a story so outlandish I had my doubts it was true, but there in a tiny paragraph in the middle of Page A4 was the headline "Trump rescinds order targeting top law firm." Our president targeted an executive order at a law firm over its hiring practices and then dropped the order when the White House was compensated with "tens of millions of dollars in free legal services." This is legal? This is only Page A4 news? That isn't even capitalism; it's more like extortion. Are free speech and freedom of the press already so castrated that the media isn't going to give the public more than a single paragraph to news that would have gotten other presidents impeached? Or jailed?

Megan Mahn Miller, Minneapolis

SOCIAL SECURITY

Yet another baseless claim of fraud

How privileged and blinded Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is to suggest that if Social Security recipients did not receive their checks, only those who are defrauding the system would complain. My husband and I paid into Social Security for years and it was a substantial amount of our paychecks. The FICA line item was the one tax I never begrudged the government. Our grandparents worked very hard to build this nation and they were secure in their retirement because of Social Security Income. For the majority of Americans currently receiving SSI, it would be catastrophic if their checks were delayed. Closing Social Security offices and cutting staff only makes it harder for the people who need it the most. The GOP plan is to gut the most popular government program to come out of the Great Depression, the program that helped America build itself back. Cutting Social Security will hurt individuals, and it will also hurt the economy.

It seems to be a common theme in this administration to accuse others of fraud. Social Security "fraud" is actually minimal. A July 2024 report from Social Security's inspector general states that from fiscal years 2015 through 2022, fewer than 1% of payments were improper. Most of these erroneous payments were recovered by the agency, so the actual amount lost to fraud is less than half a percent. The Trump administration's half-truths and disinformation for the apparent purpose of gutting the program so it can be privatized for profit border on criminal.

Kelly Befus, Blaine

•••

I have a comment on the quality of information you, Lutnick, recently provided to the American public. You said that older Americans trust the government, so they wouldn't complain about a missed Social Security check. You went on to say that only those defrauding the government would complain.

I expect my government to be truthful, but these are false statements. I also suspect they aren't grounded in hard data. I am a 77-year-old Social Security recipient. If I didn't receive a Social Security check, I would complain. It represents a significant portion of my monthly income, which, curiously, I use to live on.

Also, I am not defrauding the government regarding Social Security or anything else and I resent the suggestion that I am. It impugns my character and tarnishes my reputation, both of which I am proud of. I do trust the government, just not this one. To be truthful, and I do like to be truthful, I don't trust anything this administration says. Or does. In conclusion, I do not think the information you provided was true or accurate. I would like it corrected, please. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kathleen Winters, Roseville

•••

The top front-page headline for Saturday's Minnesota Star Tribune read "Threat To Social Security doused." It should have included "for now." As Trump and his administration keep saying they will not touch Social Security, their actions speak louder than words. They are currently attempting to close Social Security offices and add new identification requirements where people have to personally visit a Social Security office to prove their identity when it is already difficult at best to meet or talk on a phone with someone about Social Security needs without a very long wait. Are these actions their means to sabotage the Social Security Administration and achieve a de facto reduction of benefit spending created by the added turmoil? If you don't think so, I have some swampland for sale.

Charles Hendrickson, Eden Prairie

•••

Trump's Commerce Secretary Lutnick thinks seniors wouldn't miss a monthly Social Security check. This monumentally out-of-touch statement could only come from someone who will never have to worry about collecting the Social Security benefits they have earned, unlike most of the 70 million people currently receiving Social Security payments.

A survey done last November by the financial services company Bankrate found that 77% of current retirees depend on Social Security checks to meet basic expenses.

Since Lutnick cares so little about the benefits (not to mention the people who need the money), I suggest that he pledge to forgo his benefits when he becomes eligible for them.

Tom Noerenberg, Plymouth