Where The Trump-Big Law Battle Stands: A Firms Showdown

• President Donald Trump has signed a series of executive orders aimed at prominent law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• Some companies have complied with Trump's requests, whereas others have taken legal action against the administration.

President Donald Trump has recently targeted prominent law firms by initiating reviews of their government contracts and revoking security clearances for certain firm members within the last month.

A few have struck bargains with the president, whereas some are choosing not to concede just yet.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms —including law firms such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, along with several others—are accused of leveraging the legal system into a tool for political purposes. These directives have consequently complicated these firms' operations significantly. Multiple organizations have filed lawsuits alleging that the executive orders were designed to suppress freedom of expression and discourage potential clientele from engaging with them.

He has criticized a series of law firms for what he perceives as wrongdoing against him, collaborating with his political adversaries, or implementing diversity programs contrary to his opposition to DEI initiatives.

Furthermore, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pinpoint companies with "trivial" lawsuits opposing the administration so that they might be singled out for additional executive measures.

Regardless of whether they’re backed into a corner or knocked out, here’s a list of the leading companies that Trump is currently challenging, along with an update on the progress of the legal proceedings.

Paul Weiss

Previously in March, Trump released an order executive order aimed at the well-known Manhattan-based legal firm Paul Weiss, where he criticized the lawyer Mark Pomerantz and criticized what he termed as "illegal discrimination" stemming from the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Previously, Pomerantz departed from Paul Weiss to assist the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in investigating Trump's financial matters. Upon his resignation as special district attorney in February 2022, he stated in a farewell letter that he thought Trump had committed “multiple felonies.”

Under the directive, Trump aimed to rescind security clearances and prohibit entry into governmental facilities for lawyers from this particular law firm. This extensive instruction might encompass federal courthouses as well, which would have adverse effects on the firm’s operations.

However, Trump reversed the executive order just days later and made an announcement. agreement With Paul Weiss chaired by Brad Karp, Trump stated that the firm would commit $40 million to pro bono projects aligned with the administration’s goals and terminate its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an Email to the company's legal team , he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"The likelihood of our company surviving an extended conflict with the administration seemed quite slim," Karp stated in the email.

Perkins Coie

In early March, Trump went after the law firm Perkins Coie , issuing an executive order to temporarily revoke the security clearances of the company's lawyers and denouncing its diversity and inclusion initiatives.

In the sequence, Trump highlighted what he described as the company's "deceptive and risky behavior."

In his directive, the president highlighted the company's work for ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his opponent in the 2016 presidential race — amid that year’s chaotic campaign.

Nevertheless, Perkins Coie retaliated by submitting a lawsuit. lawsuit opposing the administration because it was claimed that their actions "breached fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and due process."

Central to this directive is an illegal assault on the rights of all Americans to choose their legal representation without fearing retaliation or penalties from authorities," stated Bill Malley, the managing director at Perkins Coie, in a March announcement. "We felt obligated to pursue this course of action to safeguard both our firm and our clientele.

The following day, after Perkins Coie initiated legal action through a lawsuit, a federal judge decided to put a temporary halt on certain aspects of the president's executive order.

In a statement, Perkins Coie remarked that the decision represents "a crucial initial move toward guaranteeing this unlawful Executive Order is not implemented."

Covington & Burling LLP

In late February, Trump signed a memorandum To assess federal contracts and order the revocation of security clearances for certain staff members at Covington & Burling, a Washington D.C.-based law firm recognized for its expertise in antitrust issues.

In the memorandum, the president stated that he had halted the security clearances for those advising ex-special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases opposing Trump — one related to election meddling during the 2020 presidential vote and another concerning his possession of sensitive documents — however, both charges were dismissed following his victory in securing a second term as president in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump targeted people who he claimed were engaged in "weaponizing the government," specifically mentioning Peter Koski, an attorney at Covington who represents Smith.

Earlier this month, a representative from Covington stated that they were acting on behalf of Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"The spokesman stated that they have consented to advocate for Jack Smith following indications that he might be involved in a governmental inquiry. They expressed their eagerness to protect Mr. Smith’s rights and acknowledged the confidence he has bestowed upon them in this endeavor," the representative declared in an official release.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden entered into an agreement with Trump Before being highlighted in any executive orders, the company committed to offering $100 million worth of pro bono legal assistance for “causes supported by both the President and Skadden,” as stated by Trump on Friday.

Skadden reaffirmed its dedication to hiring and retaining employees based on merit, as stated by Trump. According to a copy of the agreement provided by Trump via Truth Social, the company additionally committed not to engage in what they termed "illegal DEI discrimination."

In a statement, Jeremy London, who serves as the executive partner at Skadden, mentioned that the firm "initiated proactive engagement" with the administration to finalize the agreement.

"Issac firmly believes that this result is ultimately beneficial for our clients, our team members, and our company," he stated.

Addressing people from the White House, Trump described the agreement as "basically a settlement."

Inside the company, certain associates and staff members voiced their dissatisfaction with the deal, labeling it as the start of Skadden's decline.

In the days preceding the accord, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen She publicly stepped down and distributed an open letter to key figures at leading companies, criticizing her employer for allegedly failing to respond adequately to the administration’s assaults.

Following the announcement of the deal, another staff member named Brenna Frey likewise quit publicly through a statement posted on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The head of Elias Law Group adopted a distinct strategy following an attack by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

The statement alleged that the law firm played a significant role in the fabrication of a fake ' dossier' by an individual from another country. This falsified document was intended to furnish a bogus rationale for federal law enforcement agencies to probe a presidential hopeful with the aim of influencing the result of the presidential election.

The memo continued to state that the company "deliberately aimed to hide the part played by her client — unsuccessful presidential contender Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

“President Trump’s objective is plain,” Elias stated in the release. “He aims for attorneys and legal practices to submit and be intimidated until nobody remains to challenge his administration in court.”

Elias stated that with American democracy facing "grave danger," his law firm would not be intimidated.

We won’t back down from our fight for democracy in court," he stated. "We refuse to engage in talks with this administration regarding either the clients we serve or the legal actions we initiate on their behalf.

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order designating Jenner & Block On Tuesday, security clearances were rescinded for the company’s lawyers, and an evaluation was initiated regarding the organization's agreements with governmental bodies at the federal level.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner released a statement denouncing the directive as an "unconstitutional executive order which has already been deemed illegal by a federal court."

"The statement from Jenner emphasized their commitment to protecting and advancing their clients' interests through the same level of dedication, integrity, and skill that have characterized their practice over more than a century, and they will seek all suitable courses of action," the message read.

Jenner countered by filing a lawsuit on Friday. The company is being represented by Cooley LLP, a law firm known for its lean towards liberalism and its history of employing attorneys from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from acting against Jenner. The judge extended this order on Tuesday until a definitive ruling is reached. Both the Justice Department and Jenner agreed to this prolongation.

After the decision, Jenner stated in a press release that the directive carries "no legal standing."

The firm stated, 'We will keep doing what we've always done: serving as dedicated attorneys and unwavering champions for our clients.'

WilmerHale

The The Trump administration has likewise gone after WilmerHale. , which utilized Mueller and other attorneys working alongside the Justice Department to probe connections between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order suspending security clearances for employees at WilmerHale law firm and restricting their entry into federal facilities. Additionally, the directive canceled all of WilmerHale’s governmental contracts due to accusations of "engaging in partisan legal work aimed at achieving political objectives" as well as attempts to "discriminate based on racial grounds."

Unlike other companies that struck agreements with the president, WilmerHale opted to file a lawsuit instead.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the renowned conservative legal luminary from the law firm Clement & Murphy, aiming to counter the actions of the Trump administration.

"Absolutely crucial for upholding the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement stated to Business Insider.

On Friday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon from the District of Columbia granted approval for a temporary restraining order aimed at stopping executive moves against WilmerHale.

"Without question, this retaliatory measure deters both speech and legal advocacy, and it also constitutes a constitutional injury," Leon stated.

A representative from WilmerHale deemed the executive order unconstitutional and commended the court's "prompt response."

If you liked this tale, make sure to follow Business Insider on MSN.