On the day President Donald Trump took office, he signed an executive order titled “Ending the weaponization of the federal government.” In that order, Trump claimed that former President Joe Biden’s administration weaponized the legal force of law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community and prosecutorial power.
That order directed officials in the executive branch to look inward. Beginning in February, the administration shifted its focus to the private sector.
The first law firm directly impacted by an executive order was Covington & Burling LLP. The order, signed on Feb. 25, suspended the security clearance of Peter Koski and all of the members, partners and employees at the firm who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith. Smith was tasked with investigating and prosecuting crimes relating to the offenses at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The second firm targeted by the White House was Perkins Coie. In an executive order published March 6, Trump suspended any active security clearances held by anyone at the firm; required government contractors to review any contracts with the firm and take steps to terminate contracts; limited access of the firm’s employees to federal government buildings; and tasked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with investigating the firm’s diversity practices.
The administration cited the work done by Perkins Coie for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and George Soros and its diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Perkins Coie responded with a lawsuit on March 11, and the court ordered an injunction staying the enforcement of the executive order.
In a video statement, Bill Malley, the firm’s managing partner, explained why the firm took legal action against the order.
“This executive order and others like it threatens our firm, our clients and the freedom of all Americans to choose their lawyer without fear of retribution from the government,” Malley said. “That’s why we’re compelled to challenge the executive order in court.”
He also expressed his gratitude for the support the firm has received since the order was signed.
The next firm impacted by an executive order was Paul Weiss. On March 14, Trump levied a series of actions that mirrored those against Perkins Coie. The justification of this order was a pro bono lawsuit brought against individuals alleged to have participated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, from a partner in the firm who was a leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the hiring of Mark Pomerantz. It also cited the firm’s DEI policies.
A week later, the Trump administration announced that it had reached an agreement with Paul Weiss. The order said that the firm had acknowledged the wrongdoing of Pomerantz, agreed to changes in its diversity policies, adopted a policy of political neutrality, committed to merit-based hiring promotion and promised the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services.
In an email to the firm sent March 23, Brad Karp, the firm’s managing partner, said that the order could have destroyed the firm. He wrote that he had hoped that other firms would rally to it and Perkins Coie’s side. “Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” Karp wrote.
He noted that the settlement solved a seemingly intractable problem and that it removed a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the firm. He said that the firm’s clients had been overwhelmingly supportive, and that the resolution wouldn’t affect the work done by the firm or its shared culture and values.
Earlier this week, Jenner & Block became the latest firm targeted. A March 25 executive order instituted similar restrictions as those placed on Perkins Coie. The order stated that the firm abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermined justice and the interests of the U.S.
“Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders,” the order stated. “Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based ‘targets.’”
The firm’s rehiring of Andrew Weissman, who worked on the Robert Mueller investigation, was also a stated justification for the order. “He’s a bad guy,” Trump said during the signing of the executive order.
In a statement, the firm noted that a similar order was already declared unconstitutional by a federal court.
In addition to revoking security clearances for firms, Trump rescinded the security clearances and access of confidential information and federal buildings for a number of his political opponents. Included in that list were former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and former President Joe Biden.
Following the series of sanctions against law firms and lawyers, Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, released a statement on March 25. She said that the president is carrying out a fear campaign through these actions.
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said on March 21 in a press release that Trump used the powers of the presidency for revenge against a particular lawyer who stood up to him.
The Courts
Two recent executive orders, published on March 11 and March 22, target Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) and 11, respectively.
In its March 11 order, the White House said that the U.S. will demand that parties seeking injunctions against it must cover costs and damages if the federal government is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.
From 2001 to 2023, courts issued a total of 96 injunctions. 64 of those were issued in Trump’s first administration, according to data from Harvard Law Review.
At least 15 injunctions have been levied against Trump’s second administration since January. In the collective 16 years of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s presidencies, 18 injunctions were issued against their administrations.
The March 22 order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek sanctions against lawyers and firms that engage in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.” It also directs Bondi to pursue sanctions and disciplinary action for attorneys who violate professional conduct rules and to review conduct by attorneys and their law firms in litigation against the federal government over the past eight years.