The Trump administration is not issuing new executive directives targeting law firms as of August 2026. Instead, the Justice Department is attempting to revive executive orders issued in 2025 that federal courts permanently blocked as unconstitutional. All four original orders targeting firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block remain permanently struck down.
What occurred in 2025 was a direct campaign: the administration signed "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP" on March 6, 2025, suspending employees' security clearances and directing agencies to review or terminate contracts with the firm. Justification centered on Perkins Coie's representation of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Multiple firms received similar orders punishing them for representing Trump critics, but courts have since invalidated the entire enforcement effort.
Table of Contents
- What the 2025 Executive Orders Attempted
- Why Federal Courts Blocked Every Order
- How Firms Negotiated Away the Threat
- The Current Status and DOJ's Revival Attempts
- What This Means for Readers and Affected Firms
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the 2025 Executive Orders Attempted
Beginning March 2025, the administration issued targeted executive orders against at least four major law firms. The first order, EO 14230, suspended security clearances for Perkins Coie employees, restricted their access to federal buildings, and instructed agencies to review and terminate all contracts.
WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block faced identical measures, all framed as national security and risk-management actions. None of these orders created new law or policy—each was a directed personnel and procurement action against named private firms based on their past legal representation. Firms were not charged with crimes, provided notice, or given opportunity to respond before clearances and contracts were suspended.
Why Federal Courts Blocked Every Order
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently struck down EO 14230 on May 2, 2025, ruling it violated First Amendment and Fifth Amendment protections. The order constituted unconstitutional retaliation against legal representation—a protected activity. By June 2025, four federal judges (including appointees of George W.
Bush) had issued rulings blocking all targeted orders on the same constitutional grounds. The courts found that targeting law firms for prior client representation punishes protected speech and counsel. Neither national security nor risk management is served by suspending clearances because a firm represented an unpopular client years earlier. These rulings remain in effect today.
How Firms Negotiated Away the Threat
Rather than wait for appeals or further litigation, nine major law firms—including Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher—negotiated voluntary settlements in April and May 2025. Under these deals, firms pledged roughly $940 million in pro bono legal work to conservative causes to prevent or halt executive action against them. Skadden committed $100 million; Paul Weiss committed $40 million.
These settlements were not required by law or court order. Firms chose to surrender pro bono capacity rather than contest the orders or accept enforcement. The settlements effectively weaponized federal pressure into voluntary corporate donations of legal services.
The Current Status and DOJ's Revival Attempts
All four original executive orders remain permanently blocked and unenforced as of August 2026. No new executive orders targeting law firms have been issued in the past year.
However, the DOJ filed to drop its appeals of the blocked orders on March 2, 2026, then reversed course within hours under internal pressure, attempting to keep appeals alive. These appeals face unanimous judicial rejection and no legal path to success. The DOJ's effort to revive them does not constitute "new pressure"—it is a stalled attempt to resurrect measures that courts have already dismantled.
What This Means for Readers and Affected Firms
If you are a lawyer at a targeted firm, your security clearance and federal building access depend on how appeals proceed, though courts have already rejected the legal basis for these suspensions. The pro bono settlements, once finalized, redirect law firm resources that might otherwise serve other clients.
If you are considering whether to hire a major law firm for representation: the firm's past clients or positions will not result in direct federal retaliation, because the orders enforcing such punishment are blocked. The settlements, however, reduced pro bono capacity, which may affect whether firms can take unpaid cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are the executive orders still in effect?
No. All four targeted orders were struck down permanently by federal courts. The DOJ's attempts to appeal remain ongoing but face unanimous judicial rejection and no realistic path to reinstatement.
Which firms settled, and what did they pay?
Nine firms including Skadden ($100M), Paul Weiss ($40M), Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher pledged roughly $940 million in pro bono services to conservative causes between April and May 2025 to avoid or end executive action.
Can the administration issue new orders targeting different firms?
The courts' rulings block retaliation against legal representation as a category. Any new order following the same logic would face immediate legal challenge and be struck down under the same First Amendment grounds.