Trump’s Attacks on Big Law Firms in 2026
- WULR Team
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
The Administration’s Intimidation of Lawyers Continues Into The New Year
Published April 22nd, 2026
Written by Addie Merrick
Not even the largest and most prestigious legal giants were immune to President Donald Trump’s attacks in early 2025. Issuing an Executive Order on March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump began targeting big law firms whose practices were deemed unacceptable by the administration. The overarching initiative of the order was to target and handle firms that were practicing in a manner not compatible with the administration’s goals. From the Trump Administration’s perspective, these practices were and continue to be harmful to critical American interests. However, many viewed these attacks as unlawful and the continuation of targeting and intimidation brought about by President Trump, serving his interests rather than those of the American people.
In the earliness of Trump’s first presidency, attorneys fought against Trump’s exploitation of immigrant families in the Executive Order associated with the ‘Muslim Ban’ that restricted immigration from a number of Muslim-majority countries. The California Law Review states that hundreds of immigrant lawyers proudly stood up for immigrant families and the rule of law, inflaming Trump’s condescension toward ‘Big Law’ attorneys. In the time between Trump’s first presidency and his second, attorneys across the country have been less adamant in their volunteering for immigrants under fire from the administration. Many firms were faced with the choice to either appease the demands of the administration or stand their ground. However, firms choosing to stand their ground were faced with the risks of the measures Trump sought to take against firms who did not abide. According to the American Bar Association, tactics used against such firms included terminating security clearances, severing government contracts of the firms, and limiting access to federal buildings.
Perhaps the most contentious practice of these firms was employing people that Trump viewed as political adversaries. Many organizations, from non-profits to lawyers themselves, viewed Trump’s attacks on large law firms as a violation of the law. Alliance for Justice, a prominent U.S-based NGO, curated a call for action for lawyers to litigate against the Trump Administration as it deemed the attacks a Constitutional violation. Among the firms subject to Trump’s scrutiny were Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, WilmerHale, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. Many of these firms were faced with these orders and subsequently sued the administration. However, Paul Weiss, attempted and succeeded to rescind the Executive Order in return for free legal services. In addressing the risks of Paul Weiss, the White House deemed Paul Weiss and many other large law firms as incubators of discriminatory practices that are perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The administration also supported its disdain towards large law firms such as Paul Weiss by naming attorneys who personally conflicted with Trump’s interests. The White House names Mark Pomerantz, formerly an attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Paul Weiss, as an unethical attorney who manufactured a prosecution against Trump. After the fraud case was deemed unfeasible by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Pomerantz then led a media campaign to grow support for the prosecution. These actions, the Administration deems, were unacceptable and warranted the attacks on Paul Weiss.
Trump’s assaults on large law firms continues its reign into 2026 as many encourage major firms to not adhere to the administration’s standards. The turbulence of the Trump Administration has caused many of the targeted firms to be at a standstill, while other organizations have filed suit over the violations of First Amendment Rights. The intimidation of lawyers justified by a misalignment from the interests of the Trump Administration creates an uncertain future where Executive regulation holds power over those upholding the Constitution.
