Former President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders that critics say threaten the independence of the legal profession and the U.S. Constitution. Since March 6, Trump’s orders have targeted top law firms for representing clients or hiring lawyers who were once involved in investigations against him. Legal experts warn this move could erode key constitutional protections and intimidate firms from challenging government actions in court.
Law Firms Caught in the Crosshairs
Trump’s first executive order struck on March 6, singling out Perkins Coie LLP, which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Days later, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP was named for hiring a lawyer involved in a past New York probe of Trump.
By late March, the list had grown. Jenner & Block LLP was penalized for once employing a lawyer linked to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Then WilmerHale faced action, notably for hiring Mueller himself.
In his orders, Trump accused these firms of being “partisan” and of undermining national interests.
Legal Community Responds with Alarm
Legal professionals have expressed deep concern over the implications.
“It sends little chills down my spine,” said Judge Beryl Howell, reacting during a March 12 hearing. “To hear the government argue that these orders are lawful if the president believes it, is alarming.”
Three law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—have filed lawsuits. All three have secured temporary restraining orders, halting parts of the executive actions. Courts indicated these moves are likely unlawful.
Yet, instead of uniting against the orders, some firms are seeking compromise.
Deals in Exchange for Favor
On March 20, Paul Weiss opted to settle, agreeing to donate $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes aligned with Trump’s agenda. Other firms followed. As of April 3, four firms had signed agreements totaling $340 million in legal support for “mutually-supported causes,” including those that back conservative ideals.
“If you can intimidate law firms into not litigating against your administration, that is hugely powerful,” said David Lat, a legal commentator and former federal prosecutor. “It’s like a boxing match where you’re chopping off your opponent’s arms.”
These settlements have stirred debate about whether law firms can maintain independence while appeasing political power.
Skadden and Others Join In
On March 28, Trump announced a new agreement with elite law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP during a public ceremony in the Oval Office. Two more firms—Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Milbank LLP—also reportedly struck deals in recent days, though they declined media requests for comment.
“They’re just saying, ‘Where do I sign?’” Trump said at a Women’s History event on March 26, referring to the law firms’ willingness to negotiate.
Experts Warn of Constitutional Crisis
Legal scholars argue the executive orders may violate multiple constitutional rights: freedom of speech, association, the right to legal counsel, due process, and the right to petition the government.
“Our country is built on the idea that lawyers can represent any client, even unpopular ones,” said Paul Clement, former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush. He spoke on March 28 in court on behalf of WilmerHale.
“If you do your job well, you should be applauded—not punished by the president of the United States.”
Despite public concern, the White House has not issued a formal response. Multiple firms involved in deals also declined to comment.
Pressure from Within
Internal communications reveal just how hard these decisions were. In an email to staff, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp explained his firm’s decision to settle.
“We initially prepared to fight in court,” Karp wrote. “But it became clear that even winning a restraining order wouldn’t fix the larger problem. Our clients saw us as persona non grata with the administration.”
The Bigger Picture
As Trump eyes a return to the presidency, his actions have raised broader questions about the rule of law, checks and balances, and the ability of legal institutions to function independently.
More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against the administration in its first 75 days, making legal representation critical for advocacy groups, watchdogs, and dissenters.
Critics argue that intimidating firms into silence or cooperation undermines democracy, especially when done through executive power.
What Comes Next?
For now, the legal challenges continue. Several firms are still battling in court, while others quietly negotiate to avoid becoming the next target. If courts ultimately rule against Trump’s orders, it may restore some protections for the legal field. But if not, the profession could face lasting changes.
