The Art of the Shakedown
How Trump turned garbage lawsuits into a billion-dollar protection racket — and why corporate America keeps paying up
On July 2, 2025, Paramount Global agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit that legal experts considered laughably frivolous. The supposed crime? CBS News edited an interview with Kamala Harris — something every news organization has done with every interview since the invention of television.
Trump had sued for $10 billion in damages over the "60 Minutes" interview, claiming the network's standard editing practices somehow constituted election interference. When that didn't generate enough pressure, he upped his demand to $20 billion. The lawsuit was so absurd that First Amendment scholars openly mocked it. Harvard professor Noah Feldman called it "an outrageous violation of First Amendment principles."
Why would a major media company hand over $16 million to settle a case they would almost certainly win? The answer reveals something deeply disturbing about how Trump has transformed the American legal system into a sophisticated extortion racket using presidential power.
Welcome to the new reality of corporate America: Where the sitting president can file garbage lawsuits, leverage the full weight of his office to make your life hell, and walk away with millions in what amounts to legalized protection money. Paramount wasn't the first victim, and they certainly won't be the last.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion in settlements and "commitments" from companies desperate to make his manufactured legal problems go away. It's a shakedown operation that would make Tony Soprano blush — except this one's happening in broad daylight, with press releases and legal filings.
Let's talk about how this scam actually works.
Meta got hit first. Days after Trump retook office, Zuckerberg's company coughed up $25 million because they had the absolute gall to suspend Trump's accounts after he incited a riot. Legal scholar Eric Goldman called Trump's First Amendment claims "incredibly weak to the point of being mockable." But here's the thing — when you're president, you don't need good legal arguments. You need leverage.
And Trump sure knows how to use it. While his lawyers were filing briefs that would embarrass a first-year law student, his administration was making life hell for any company that wouldn't pay up. Regulatory delays. Contract reviews. Executive orders that just happened to target his lawsuit defendants. Weird how that works!
The law firms, though? That's where this whole thing went from gross to genuinely frightening.
Starting in March, Trump went after Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison with an executive order threatening to yank security clearances from any lawyer who'd worked against him. Without security clearances, these firms would struggle to represent corporate clients. It would, as Paul Weiss noted, "destroy the firm."
By April, nine major law firms had bent the knee, agreeing to provide $940 million in "pro bono" work. I need you to appreciate the sick joke here: Pro bono comes from the Latin term “pro bon publico,” which literally means "for the public good." It's supposed to be lawyers voluntarily helping people who can't afford representation. Trump turned it into a protection payment.
Skadden Arps: $100 million. Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million. Latham & Watkins: $125 million. All because they committed the crime of... being good at their jobs when their jobs involved opposing Trump.
Oh, but the money wasn't enough. These firms also had to promise to gut their DEI programs and pledge allegiance to "merit-based hiring" — because nothing says "merit" like paying hundreds of millions to make fake lawsuits go away. Some firms even had to agree to drop EEOC discrimination investigations as part of the deal.
The American Bar Association and 80 law school deans wrote a strongly worded letter about how this was destroying legal independence. But oh well.
So why are some of the most powerful companies in America handing over millions to settle cases they'd definitely win? Because winning in court doesn't matter when the president can destroy your business while you're waiting for the verdict.
Look at what happened to Paramount. While their lawyers were drafting motions to dismiss Trump's ridiculous $20 billion lawsuit, guess what was mysteriously held up? Their pending merger approvals at the FCC. Just coincidentally, of course. Totally unrelated to the president having a lawsuit against them. Pure coincidence.
Or take the law firms. Sure, they could fight the executive orders in court. They'd probably win! Eventually. After appeals. Maybe in two or three years. But their lawyers need security clearances today. Their clients need representation now. As Georgetown law professor Emily Chertoff observed, even when courts block Trump's orders as unconstitutional, the "chilling effects" have already done their damage.
It's the perfect crime, really. File a frivolous lawsuit. Use presidential powers to create immediate business pain. Offer to make it all go away for a "small" settlement. Rinse, repeat, profit.
But Trump couldn't pull this off alone. He needs enablers, and he found them in the companies that agreed to pay up. ABC paid $15 million in December 2024 for the crime of accurately describing a jury verdict. Meta paid $25 million in January. Paramount paid $16 million in July. Nine law firms committed almost a billion dollars in forced "charity."
These all set a precedent that you could just throw money at Trump to make him go away. Every subsequent settlement made the next one easier.
The message to every CEO in America is clear: Cross Trump, and you'll be next. Sure, his lawsuit will be legally ridiculous. But do you want to spend the next three years fighting executive orders, regulatory harassment, and contract reviews? Or do you want to write a check and make it go away?
In just six months, Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion from American companies through legally baseless lawsuits. At this rate, running protection rackets is way more lucrative than running hotels. Why bother with the actual work of business when you can just threaten corporations until they pay up?
But here's what gets me: We're watching the rule of law get replaced by the law of rules — Trump's rules. And the first rule is simple: Pay up or get destroyed.
This isn't just about money. It's about power. Every company that settles doesn't just hand over cash, but a piece of their independence. Every law firm that agrees to "merit-based hiring" (read: whatever Trump wants) surrenders professional autonomy. Every media outlet that reports these settlements as normal business news normalizes extortion.
The international business community is watching this horror show and taking notes. Why invest in a country where the president can shake you down with impunity? Why build a business in a place where frivolous lawsuits are just the cost of not kissing the ring? We're speedrunning the transformation from a nation of laws to a protection racket with a flag.
The most enraging part? Everyone knows this is happening. The legal experts calling these lawsuits "mockable." The companies writing checks while grinding their teeth. Everyone sees the scam. But the checks keep clearing anyway.
So what happens next? Trump will keep filing lawsuits. Companies will keep settling. The media will keep reporting it like it's normal. And somewhere in a boardroom, a CEO is calculating whether it's cheaper to pay Trump now or wait for the lawsuit that's definitely coming.
Welcome to America 2025, where the president runs a protection racket and we all pretend it's just politics. Nice democracy you've got there.
Shame if something happened to it.
Another example of how Trump and his Christonazi/Neoconfederate rabble are making sure their "Unified Reich," the former United States, replaces Nazi Germany as the most sadistically cruel nation in human history.
"While their lawyers were drafting motions to dismiss Trump's ridiculous $20 billion lawsuit, guess what was mysteriously held up? Their pending merger approvals at the FCC."
Maybe the corporate addiction to mergers is a problem? Can't just exist as they are while they fight this in court? No, we must MERGE and we must MERGE NOW.