Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration

Aaron Zebley, a target of one of Trump's executive orders, being sworn in during Robert Mueller's House Intelligence Committee testimony on July 24, 2019

The targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration refers to those unprecedented actions starting in March 2025 that the administration of Donald Trump took against lawyers and law firms including issuing executive orders and presidential memorandums 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.

These actions largely target those lawyers and law firms that had taken positions adverse to the administration in prior years. Trump signed presidential memorandums and executive orders that have specifically targeted the following law firms: Covington & Burling, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. Trump also mentioned the following specific lawyers in the presidential memorandums and executive orders: Peter Koski, Mark Pomerantz, Andrew Weissmann, Aaron Zebley, James Quarles, and Marc Elias

In addition, the Trump administration started other efforts to influence practices by law firms, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sending letters to twenty law firms demanding information about their employment practices. The administration also threatened to bring attorneys before disciplinary proceedings. At the same time individuals close to the administration have been running to be a part of the administration of the District of Columbia Bar, who would oversee disciplinary proceedings for many of the attorneys in question.

Legal experts have stated that this targeting of law firms "could cast a chill over the freedom held by lawyers to represent clients of their choice." Law firms have taken a variety of approaches in response to the actions by the Trump administration, with three firms (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr) suing the Trump administration and four other firms making a deal with the Trump administration (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Milbank LLP).

Actions by the Trump administration

The Trump administration has taken a variety of actions against law firms including issuing Executive Orders, issuing presidential memorandum, and making deals with law firms to forestall any other action.

Presidential memorandum against Covington & Burling

Jack Smith in 2023

On February 25, 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum stating the following:

I hereby direct the Attorney General and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel, pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process. I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, if any of the covered Covington & Burling LLP members, partners, and employees referenced in this memorandum obtained a security clearance from an agency not included as an addressee of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall provide this memorandum to the appropriate clearance-granting agency to ensure compliance. I further direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue a memorandum to all agencies to review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP.

Peter Koski, who was specifically targeted by the memorandum, as a prosecutor worked with former special counsel 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. A Covington spokesman stated regarding the matter: "We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation...We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Executive Order 14237 against Paul Weiss and settlement

On March 14, 2025, Trump issued executive order 14237 titled "Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss" that stated in pertinent part:

My Administration has already taken action to address some of the significant risks and egregious conduct associated with law firms, and I have determined that similar action is necessary to end Government sponsorship of harmful activity by an additional law firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.

In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.

The executive order went on to state that officials in the executive should: "suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Paul Weiss and Mark Pomerantz, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest"; that the Office of Management and Budget should review any goods or services provided to Paul Weiss and cease them if permitted by law; that government contracting should review any contracts with Paul Weiss or "entities that disclose doing business with Paul Weiss" and shall terminate any contract to the extent permissible under law; heads of all agencies should limit the ability of employees of Paul Weiss to enter government buildings; and agency officials shall "refrain from hiring employees of Paul Weiss."

Mark Pomerantz, who was targeted in the executive order, had been a firm partner until 2022. He then worked with the Manhattan district attorney's office, which subsequently prosecuted Trump for falsifying business records. The firm had done pro bono work in January 6 cases.

On March 19, Paul Weiss told a judge in a New Jersey case that it had been fired by a client because of the order. The next day, the firm agreed that in exchange for the order against them being lifted, it would commit $40 million toward pro bono legal services in support of Trump administration goals; that they no longer would pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion policies; and they then issued a public statement that Pomerantz had committed wrongdoing. Trump then issued another executive order, rescinding order 14237.

Pomerantz released a statement saying that he had done nothing wrong in his role as a prosecutor.

The move by Paul Weiss was widely criticized and seen as "humiliating" in the legal profession. 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 executive order but that even 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: "We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our 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."

Executive Order against Perkins Coie and related lawsuit

On March 6, 2025, Trump issued 14230 titled "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP" that stated in pertinent part:

The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election. This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification. In one such case, a court was forced to sanction Perkins Coie attorneys for an unethical lack of candor before the court.

In addition to undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

My Administration is committed to ending discrimination under “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant race-based and sex-based discrimination, including quotas, but purposefully hide the nature of such discrimination through deceiving language, have engaged in a serious violation of the public trust. Their disrespect for the bedrock principle of equality represents good cause to conclude that they neither have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.

Similar to the executive order against Paul Weiss, the order against Perkins Coie went on to state that officials in the executive should: "suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest"; that Office of Management and Budget should review any goods or services provided to Perkins Coie and cease them if permitted by law; that government contracting should review any contracts with Perkins Coie or "entities that disclose doing business with Perkins Coie" and shall terminate any contract to the extent permissible under law; heads of all agencies should limit the ability of employees of Perkins Coie to enter government buildings; and Agency officials shall "refrain from hiring employees of Paul Weiss."

Perkins Coie had represented Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, and in that capacity paid for opposition research that led to the Steele dossier.

Judge Howell in 2018

Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration whereas Paul Weiss made a deal with the Trump administration. Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley stated "At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government...We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

On March 12, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked part of the order against Perkins Coie. In reviewing the case, Howell "cited the First Amendment in temporarily blocking the portion of the order limiting their attorneys’ access to federal buildings and requiring government contractors to disclose if they do business with the firm." Howell said that the order likely violated several constitutional amendments and "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession". Howell, an appointee of former president Barack Obama, stated that like the Queen of Hearts, Trump's statements are entertaining to read about but “cannot be the reality we are living” under the law. Howell stated: "I am sure many in the legal profession are watching in horror about what Perkins Coie is going through here." The Department of Justice attempted to have Howell removed from the case, alleging that she is "insufficiently impartial", but the motion was denied. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have also filed suit.

Perkins Coie stated in the lawsuit that "The Order imposes these punishments as retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents...The retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients."

Executive Order 14246 against Jenner & Block and related lawsuit

Andrew Weissmann in 2024

On March 6, 2025, Trump issued 14246 titled "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block" that stated in pertinent part:

My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called "Big Law" firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles. Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients' dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts. Jenner & Block LLP (Jenner) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession's highest ideals, condoned partisan "lawfare," and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. For example, 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. 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." In addition, Jenner was "thrilled" to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation. Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court. The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities.

The executive order went on to suspend the security clearance of lawyers and "restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work." Jenner had previously represented clients "challenging some of his major policies and formerly employed a prosecutor involved in a special counsel investigation of his 2016 campaign." The firm had been involved in litigation related to: blocking enforcement of an executive order related to trying to prohibit "gender transition treatments to people under 19", representing "immigrant-rights groups challenging Trump's efforts to curb asylum rights", and representing an environmental group accusing the "Environmental Protection Agency of illegally freezing grant money." The firm also employees various individuals that served in the administrations of Barack Obama as well as the administration of Joe Biden along with those that served to assist in the investigation of the January 6 attack. The order reasoning the firm's employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor that had worked on the Mueller special counsel investigation. The firm has also been involved in challenging a number of policies by the Trump administration since the start of his second term.

Will Scharf, the White House Staff Secretary, stated that these actions were being taken because of Jenner & Block's "weaponization of the legal system against American principles and values." In response, Jenner & Block stated that this order is very similar to those orders that have "already been declared unconstitutional" and that the firm "remain[s] focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies."

Jenner & Block issued a statement after the Executive Order stating: "We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies."

In response to Trump's executive order, Jenner & Block sued the administration, and on March 28, 2025, the judge in that case Judge John D. Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a temporary restraining order that said that the executive order likely violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The judge stated that: "The court does not take lightly the power to enjoin the executive branch, but the government has not made any persuasive case that the public interest will be harmed" by halting enforcement, he said.

Executive Order against WilmerHale and related lawsuit

On March 27, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order titled "Addressing Risks From WilmerHale" that stated in pertinent part:

My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called "Big Law" firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles. Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients' dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession's highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. For example, WilmerHale engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote. Moreover, WilmerHale itself discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based "targets."

WilmerHale is also bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice. For example, WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and his colleagues — Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s "top aide" and "closest associate," and James Quarles — by welcoming them to the firm after they wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history. Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government, yet WilmerHale claimed he "embodies the highest value of our firm and profession." Mueller’s "investigation" upended the lives of public servants in my Administration who were summoned before "prosecutors" with the effect of interfering in their ability to fulfill the mandates of my first term agenda. This weaponization of the justice system must not be rewarded, let alone condoned.

WilmerHale filed suit against the executive order and hired Paul Clement of the firm Clement & Murphy to represent them. Clement stated: "This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law." In response to the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a temporary restraining order blocking parts of the executive order. Judge Leon wrote in his opinion: "There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm." Leon said WilmerHale "faces more than economic harm" from the executive order, "it faces crippling losses and its very survival is at stake" and that the harms suffered by the firm "would be so severe and would spill over to its clients and the justice system at large" and thus "public interest demands protecting against harms of this magnitude."

Deals with Skadden, Willkie, and Milbank

On March 28, 2025, it was announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom had agreed to make a deal with the Trump administration. The Trump administration would not issue an executive order against the firm and in return the firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work "to causes that the President and Skadden both support." Trump stated on Truth Social that the firm had also committed to not engage in the future in any "illegal DEI discrimination and preferences".

This was the second deal that the Trump administration struck with a law firm regarding ceasing to target a law firm in return for certain assurances including certain promises related to pro bono work, the first being with Paul Weiss.

The firm's executive partner Jeremy London stated that it was "pleased to have achieved a successful agreement with President Trump and his Administration. We engaged proactively with the President and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement. The Firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his Administration. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm." Following the announced deal, Brenna Frey resigned publicly with a statement issued on LinkedIn.

On April 1, 2025, it was announced that Willkie Farr & Gallagher had reached a similar deal with Trump that Skadden had to avoid being targeted. Similar to the Skadden deal, Willkie agreed to "provide $100 million in legal services and not engage in diversity, equity and inclusion programs." The lawfirm is notable for having Douglas Emhoff, the husband of Kamala Harris, as a partner.

On April 2, Trump announced that he had a deal with Milbank LLP similar to the deals with Skadden and Willkie. According to Trump's announcement, Milbank would agree to end "any DEI-based hiring practices", and "to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as 'assisting veterans' and 'combatting antisemitism.'" Milbank also promised that its pro bono commitment would ensure that the firm took on cases that included "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals." Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, stated that the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration. Edelman wrote a letter to staff that stated: "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed...Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

EEOC letters

In addition to the executive actions and presidential memorandums that focused on specific law firms, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also sent letters to twenty law firms demanding information about their employment practice telling them that they were being investigated in relation to their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices.

The law firms that received letters from Acting Chair Lucas include: A & O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; Cooley LLP; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP; Goodwin Procter LLP; Hogan Lovells LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank LLP; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Morrison & Foerster LLP; Perkins Coie; Reed Smith; Ropes & Gray LLP; Sidley Austin LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; White & Case LLP; and WilmerHale.

Memo against firms including Elias Law Group

Trump also 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 menacing 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 don't share his political views. A variety of people in the legal profession condemned the memorandum as an attempt to intimidate firms so that they wouldn't take on clients who oppose government actions.

In the memorandum, Trump specifically mentioned the Elias Law Group LLP as being "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election" and that "Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier." Marc Elias, the chair of Elias Law Group spoke openly in opposition to such actions by stating: "President Trump's goal is clear...[h]e wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court...Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court...There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Attempt to win positions in the DC Bar

Additionally, it was reported that Trump had in his statements made threats of disciplinary actions against lawyers it had opposed in its executive actions. President Trump signed "another executive order critics say will have a chilling effect on those taking on litigation against the administration — encouraging the attorney general to refer attorneys for disciplinary action if it is determined they have filed 'frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation'"The media noted that these threats also corresponded with certain individuals linked to the Trump administration with running for the DC Bar, the organization that oversees disciplinary actions for lawyers barred in DC. Bradley Bondi, who is the brother of the Attorney General Pam Bondi, is running for president of the DC Bar and Alicia Long, a deputy to Ed Martin who is Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, is running for treasurer of the DC Bar. The election for these positions runs from April to June 2025.

The DC Bar, which has over 120,000 members, has the power to decide who gets to be barred to practice within the District of Columbia as a lawyer and also reviews disbarring attorneys due to misconduct. The Trump administration has been critical of bar associations review of Trump officials actions and disbarment proceedings in the past.

Reactions

Trump's actions against law firms divided the legal community in how to respond.

Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the goal of these executive orders was to "intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go against Donald Trump and the current administration."

An anonymous attorney at a big law firm stated "The president and those closest to him know that they have the ability to put more than a squeeze — a crush — on law firms, who have lawyers who speak out, advocate, organize, represent in a way which is unpleasant, undesirable for the administration...So lawyers and law firms are wanting to keep their head down and represent as small a target as they possibly can be" The anonymous source said: "The financial implications for a law firm can be nuclear, and therefore it’s a declaration of war against lawyers and law firms who have in some way offended somebody in the administration...The concerns of the law firms are legitimate. They’re not imagined from the perspective of a law firm and its management. They have mouths to feed. They have families of lawyers and paralegals and secretaries and messengers that have to be taken into account. And so it’s not as though it’s an easy call — it’s a painful call."

Another anonymous attorney said "Every lawyer now who litigates on behalf of a client against the administration, against an agency, against some executive action, against some agency action, against some law enforcement action has to now run the risk of being quote, unquote, sanctioned by the Department of Justice. I mean, we’re talking Mussolini here"

The series of actions against lawyers and law firms quickly started having the desired effect of making it harder for those who oppose Trump administration actions to find lawyers who would agree to represent them. UCLA Law professor Scott Cummings and a former senior Justice Department official have both called Trump's moves attacking law firms and targeting lawyers "authoritarian". Senior attorney for the ACLU Ben Wizner said Trump's threats are an attempt to "chill and intimidate" lawyers who challenge him. In remarks delivered with the Governor of Louisiana, President Trump told reporters that he thinks "The law firms have to behave themselves, and we've proven that."

Within the legal community, there have been varied responses to Trump's attacks on the profession. Law firms that haven't been targeted by Trump have largely been silent in response, although a few firms have issued public statements, such as Albert Sellars LLP, whose response was a concise "Fuck that fascist nonsense." The American Bar Association released a statement encouraging everyone in the profession to stand up against the Trump's "efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession", following that with another statement joined by over 50 smaller bar associations across the country.

The deans of nearly 80 law schools from across the country also signed a joint letter condemning the administration's actions, stating that "Punishing lawyers for their representation and advocacy violates the First Amendment and undermines the Sixth Amendment." Democratic state attorneys general sent a joint letter as well, condemning Trump's attempts to undermine the rule of law.

Eighty-two law school professors of Harvard Law School's 118 active professors signed an open letter condemning the Trump administration’s actions against law firms.

Rachel Cohen resignation

Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, organized an open letter, inviting other associates to sign on. The letter, addressed to large law firms, called on them to take a stand. As of March 27, 2025, over 1500 associates had signed it.

Later Cohen resigned in protest over Skadden's inaction in response to Trump's actions. She described this as an "existential" risk to the matter of law. Cohen said: "Law firms need to be united in condemning these actions and pointing out just how beyond the pale they are. And I think that they’re scared to do that for a variety of reasons. The first is that big law has a deep collective action problem....It does just all come around to, is this industry going to be silent when the president operates outside the balance of the law, or is it not?... It was unbelievably obvious to us, once we talked it through that that’s what was coming...And it’s very challenging to get firms to act before the bad thing happens, or to get anyone to act before the bad thing happens...I think that firms have an obligation — being made up of these lawyers at the top of their game who work unbelievable hours to make it into the upper echelons of a legal system in the United States — they have an obligation to protect that legal system itself."