The second administration of U.S. president Donald Trump has taken unprecedented actions targeting American law firms and lawyers that had previously represented positions adverse to Trump. This targeting of political opponents includes issuing executive orders (EOs) and presidential memoranda limiting the ability of attorneys to obtain access to government buildings, stopping any consideration for future employment with the government, canceling government contracts, and preventing any company that uses such a firm from obtaining federal contracts.
President Trump signed memoranda and orders that both threatened attorneys in general and targeted certain law firms and lawyers in particular. The Trump administration made efforts to influence practices by law firms, such as directing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to send letters to 20 law firms demanding information about each firm's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) employment practices. Law firms and lawyers have responded in a variety of ways to these actions, with some firms and attorneys that were specific targets suing the Trump administration in response, resulting in six separate lawsuits against the administration. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss) is the sole law firm targeted by an executive order that did not sue the administration and instead made a deal with the administration to avoid sanctions and restore access.
In addition to Paul Weiss, eight other firms made preemptive deals with Trump to avoid being similarly targeted by executive orders. As part of the settlements, the nine law firms have agreed to provide a total of $940 million in pro bono work to efforts supported by the president and the firms. Trump later issued an executive order stating that the attorney general should create a mechanism to provide pro bono services to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses defending their actions. Some have asserted that Trump intends to have the firms that settled provide such legal work. The administration also threatened to bring attorneys before disciplinary proceedings in an executive order, while individuals close to the administration simultaneously campaigned to become officials of the District of Columbia Bar, who would then oversee those proceedings for many of the attorneys.
Legal experts have stated that this effort of targeting of lawyers and law firms for the clients they represent could intimidate lawyers from representing certain clients in the future. Those firms that have sued over executive orders, to June 2025, have each prevailed in court, with favorable judicial rulings.Barrett, Devlin "American Bar Association Sues Trump Administration" The New York Times, June 16, 2025. Retrieved June 19, 2025.
Actions by the Trump administration
Presidential memorandum against Covington & Burling
On February 25, 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the suspension of security clearances for Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his tenure. The memorandum also instructed federal agencies to terminate any engagements with Covington & Burling and to review all government contracts with the firm, aligning agency funding decisions with the administration's priorities. Koski worked as a prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigating and prosecuting public corruption with Jack Smith, and later represented him on a pro bono basis. Smith led federal investigations and prosecutions of Trump in both an election obstruction case and a classified documents case. Covington & Burling responded by affirming that they would continue to represent Jack Smith despite the action against the firm.
Executive Order 14230 against Perkins Coie and related lawsuit
On March 6, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14230 titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP." The EO suspended security clearances for the firm's employees, restricted their access to federal buildings, directed agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm, and ordered the government not to hire attorneys from the firm. The administration cited the firm's prior association with Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign and its involvement in commissioning the opposition research that led to the Steele dossier, as well as criticizing the firm's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies as undermining national interests.
In response to this action, Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration and stated that it was taking this action to protect the firm, to protect its clients, and to protect the legal system from an “unlawful attack on the Freedom of all Americans to select their counsel of choice without fear of retribution or punishment.” Perkins Coie also stated that they believed Trump's executive action was retribution against the firm for connections with Trump's political opponents and designed to “chill future lawyers from representing particular clients."
On March 12, Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked part of the EO against Perkins Coie related to barring attorneys in the law firm from entering government buildings as a violation of the First Amendment. Howell said that the order likely violated several constitutional amendments and "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession." Howell also stated that many lawyers were watching this case in horror. Howell, an appointee of former president Barack Obama, rejected a motion by the Department of Justice to have her removed from the case for being "insufficiently impartial". Perkins Coie was the first law firm to file suit to block the executive orders, and others would later file similar suits. Over 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie's lawsuit.
On May 2, Howell permanently blocked the executive order, characterizing it as "an unprecedented attack" on the legal system and ruling that it "violates the Constitution and is thus null and void." DOJ filed a notice on June 30 that it would appeal Howell's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Executive Order 14237 against Paul Weiss and settlement On March 14, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14237 titled "Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss" that suspended security clearances for the firm's employees, restricted their access to federal buildings, and directed agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm.
In support of this action, the administration cited the firm's prior association with attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had helped prosecute Trump for falsifying business records; the firm's involvement in pro bono suits against those who participated in January 6; and asserted that the firm used diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies to discriminate against its employees. On March 19, Paul Weiss told a judge in a New Jersey case that it had been fired by a client because of the EO.
On March 20, the firm struck a deal with the Trump administration that the government would rescind the executive order in return for Paul Weiss committing $40 million toward pro bono legal services in support of Trump administration goals, ending diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and issuing a public statement that Pomerantz had committed wrongdoing.
Trump then issued Executive Order 14244 titled "Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss", rescinding order 14237, and stating that Paul Weiss recognized the "wrongdoing" of Pomerantz, agreed to policy changes to promote equality, agreed to a policy of political neutrality for hiring and representing clients, agreed to take on pro bono that would represent the "full political spectrum", committed to merit-based employment practices instead of DEI, and dedicated $40 million pro bono legal services during Trump's term to support "assisting our Nation's veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives."
In response to the statements by the firm and the Trump administration, Pomerantz asserted that he had done nothing wrong in his role as a prosecutor.
The settlement by Paul Weiss was widely criticized, and viewed as "humiliating" in the legal profession, since no explicit requests were made of the firm by Trump. Journalist and legal commentator Mike Masnick described Paul Weiss's actions as "In short, they caved. They folded like a cheap suit. They made it clear that Paul Weiss not only won't fight for its clients, it won't fight for itself." Harvard Law School lecturer Deepak Gupta similarly asked: "Would you want to be represented by a law firm that can't even stand up for itself? A law firm that might sell you out to the federal government to save its own skin?"
The firm said that it deliberated on whether to fight the EO, but that fighting it would be problematic because doing so "would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration." Brad Karp wrote an email to staff stating that the firm struck the deal because the firm could not stop the effects of the executive order, that clients had told the firm that they were going to leave the firm as a result of the EO, and that the firm "would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration." The head of Paul Weiss stated that the executive order could have easily "destroyed our firm."
In February 2026, the revelation of Brad Karp's personal relationship with convicted criminal and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was followed by Karp's resignation as the chair of Paul Weiss. The following month, Bloomberg Law reported, in March 2026, that the firm — which had positioned itself "as a bulwark against Trump" in 2018 — agreeing to provide $40 million in legal services to the Trump administration, one year prior, had weakened its reputation, and that other law firms struggled to meet the needs of pro bono work no longer performed by Paul Weiss as a result.
Presidential memorandum against specific lawyers and related lawsuit
On March 21, 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum, "Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals". It revoked the clearances and access of 14 individuals, including several lawyers: Alvin Bragg, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissmann, and Mark Zaid. Zaid has represented whistleblowers in both Republican and Democratic administrations, among them the whistleblower whose complaint led to Trump's first impeachment, and he has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the memorandum.
Memorandum generally against firms including Elias Law Group On March 22, Trump issued a presidential memorandum, "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court", targeting lawyers and law firms more generally if they filed "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation" against the administration, as judged by the attorney general. The memo, again including revocation of security clearances and preventing any company that uses such a firm from getting federal contracts, has been seen as a threatening escalation and broadening of the president's campaign of retaliation against judges and lawyers who do not share his political views. A variety of people in the legal profession condemned the memorandum as an attempt to intimidate firms so that they would not take on clients who oppose government actions.