What to Know About the Law Firms Targeted by Trump
President Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Mar. 6, 2025. Credit - Allison Robbert—ThePresident Donald Trump was expected to go after his enemies when he returned to the White House. But few predicted he would target 'Big Law' the way he has.
'Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,' Trump wrote in a March 22 memorandum. But the American Bar Association, which oversees academic standards for law schools and ethical codes for lawyers in the U.S., has pushed back at the idea that his actions taken against specific firms is about professional conduct.
'Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution,' ABA President William R. Bay said in a statement on March 3, after reports that the government 'decided to punish a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm because it represents a party that the administration does not like' and 'that actions may be taken against more law firms' in the weeks to come.
'We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not,' Bay's statement, which also addressed efforts by the Trump Administration to 'undermine the courts' or 'punish judges who rule certain ways.'
But that didn't stop Trump. Over the past couple of weeks, the President has, through a series of executive actions, sought to punish several specific law firms that have been involved in any capacity in working against him, primarily by cancelling their national security clearances, which can impede the firms' work.
Here's what to know about the law firms that Trump has issued orders against so far, why he's done so, and how each firm has responded.
On March 27, Trump ordered the federal government to stop working with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale)—suspending the law firm's security clearances, directing federal agencies to terminate contracts they have with the firm, and limiting WilmerHale employees' access to government buildings.
Trump lambasted the firm for employing former special counsel Robert Mueller—who led the special investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's ties with Russia. Trump said WilmerHale 'rewarded' Mueller and his colleagues 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.' The President's order also criticized WilmerHale's diversity efforts, and claimed it worked against American interests as it 'engages in obvious partisan representations' and 'backs the obstruction of efforts' against illegal immigrants and drug trafficking.
In a statement to the media, a spokesperson for WilmerHale called the order 'unlawful' and said the firm will pursue 'all appropriate remedies' to countermand it. The spokesperson added that Mueller 'retired from our firm in 2021.'
'Our firm has a longstanding tradition of representing a wide range of clients, including in matters against administrations of both parties,' the WilmerHale spokesperson said.
On March 25, Trump issued an executive order against Chicago-headquartered firm Jenner & Block. Trump suspended security clearances for the firm's employees and restricted the firm's access to federal buildings and contracting work.
In his order, Trump singled out Andrew Weissmann —a longtime deputy of Mueller and a top prosecutor in the Russia investigation—whom he says Jenner & Block was ''thrilled' to re-hire.' Weissmann worked for the firm from 2006 to 2011 and then again from 2020 to 2021 between stints in government.
A spokesperson for Jenner & Block responded to the order: '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.' The firm added in its statement that the executive order resembled one that 'has already been declared unconstitutional' by a federal judge.
On March 14, Trump extended similar revocations of security clearances and government building access to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul, Weiss), which is headquartered in New York.
In the order, Trump cited Paul, Weiss' former lawyer Mark Pomerantz, who investigated Trump for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office from 2021. Pomerantz looked into Trump's finances and his links to adult film star Stormy Daniels but resigned from the DA Office in 2022, despite believing he had sufficient evidence against Trump, after DA Alvin Bragg opted not to pursue charges.
In a surprise move, Trump rescinded the order against Paul, Weiss on March 21 after Paul, Weiss 'acknowledged the wrongdoing' of former partner Pomerantz and vowed to some policy changes, including the dedication of $40 million worth of pro bono legal services to 'support causes' of the Trump Administration like anti-Semitism efforts and 'fairness in the justice system.'
Other law firms and lawyers described Paul, Weiss' response as cowing to Trump. Former associates wrote a letter calling the deal 'a permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul.' But the firm's chairman Brad Karp defended the agreement with Trump in an internal email to its employees, the New York Times reported, arguing the firm 'would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration.'
On March 6, Trump targeted Perkins Coie LLP, similarly suspending security clearances for the Seattle-headquartered law firm and ordering federal agencies to stop business with it.
In the order, the President criticized the firm's 'dishonest and dangerous activity.' The firm is known in Washington for working with the Democratic Party, including commissioning a research and intelligence firm to look into Trump's ties to Russia for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Trump also criticized the firm for its diversity initiatives and for taking on clients that work against the Administration's agenda.
Perkins filed a suit on March 11 challenging the constitutionality of Trump's order, claiming that 'its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients.' A day later, a federal judge temporarily blocked part of Trump's order.
On February 25, Trump signed an executive action stripping the security clearances of and reviewing all work the federal government has with Covington & Burling LLP, the largest law firm in D.C.
In the memorandum, Trump named Peter Koski—a partner at the firm who represented former special prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith brought two criminal cases against the President, though they were dropped after Trump's election victory last November.
Read More: How Trump Got Away With It, According to Jack Smith
Politico reported that Smith received $140,000 in pro bono legal services from Covington before he resigned in January.
A spokesperson for Covington said in a statement to ABC News that the firm agreed to represent Smith 'when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation' and that the firm serves as defense counsel to Smith 'in his personal, individual capacity.' The spokesperson added: "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors in Trupanion (NASDAQ:TRUP) have seen favorable returns of 92% over the past year
These days it's easy to simply buy an index fund, and your returns should (roughly) match the market. But investors can boost returns by picking market-beating companies to own shares in. To wit, the Trupanion, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUP) share price is 92% higher than it was a year ago, much better than the market return of around 11% (not including dividends) in the same period. If it can keep that out-performance up over the long term, investors will do very well! In contrast, the longer term returns are negative, since the share price is 2.4% lower than it was three years ago. So let's assess the underlying fundamentals over the last 1 year and see if they've moved in lock-step with shareholder returns. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. Given that Trupanion didn't make a profit in the last twelve months, we'll focus on revenue growth to form a quick view of its business development. When a company doesn't make profits, we'd generally hope to see good revenue growth. Some companies are willing to postpone profitability to grow revenue faster, but in that case one would hope for good top-line growth to make up for the lack of earnings. Trupanion grew its revenue by 14% last year. That's a fairly respectable growth rate. Buyers pushed the share price 92% in response, which isn't unreasonable. If revenue stays on trend, there may be plenty more share price gains to come. But it's crucial to check profitability and cash flow before forming a view on the future. The company's revenue and earnings (over time) are depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers). If you are thinking of buying or selling Trupanion stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet. It's nice to see that Trupanion shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 92% over the last year. That's better than the annualised return of 6% over half a decade, implying that the company is doing better recently. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Even so, be aware that Trupanion is showing 1 warning sign in our investment analysis , you should know about... If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: many of them are unnoticed AND have attractive valuation). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
While shareholders of Cloudflare (NYSE:NET) are in the black over 5 years, those who bought a week ago aren't so fortunate
For many, the main point of investing in the stock market is to achieve spectacular returns. While not every stock performs well, when investors win, they can win big. Don't believe it? Then look at the Cloudflare, Inc. (NYSE:NET) share price. It's 378% higher than it was five years ago. This just goes to show the value creation that some businesses can achieve. Also pleasing for shareholders was the 48% gain in the last three months. While the stock has fallen 4.3% this week, it's worth focusing on the longer term and seeing if the stocks historical returns have been driven by the underlying fundamentals. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. Cloudflare wasn't profitable in the last twelve months, it is unlikely we'll see a strong correlation between its share price and its earnings per share (EPS). Arguably revenue is our next best option. Shareholders of unprofitable companies usually desire strong revenue growth. That's because fast revenue growth can be easily extrapolated to forecast profits, often of considerable size. For the last half decade, Cloudflare can boast revenue growth at a rate of 32% per year. That's well above most pre-profit companies. Arguably, this is well and truly reflected in the strong share price gain of 37%(per year) over the same period. Despite the strong run, top performers like Cloudflare have been known to go on winning for decades. On the face of it, this looks lke a good opportunity, although we note sentiment seems very positive already. You can see how earnings and revenue have changed over time in the image below (click on the chart to see the exact values). It's probably worth noting that the CEO is paid less than the median at similar sized companies. But while CEO remuneration is always worth checking, the really important question is whether the company can grow earnings going forward. So we recommend checking out this free report showing consensus forecasts It's good to see that Cloudflare has rewarded shareholders with a total shareholder return of 128% in the last twelve months. That gain is better than the annual TSR over five years, which is 37%. Therefore it seems like sentiment around the company has been positive lately. Someone with an optimistic perspective could view the recent improvement in TSR as indicating that the business itself is getting better with time. Most investors take the time to check the data on insider transactions. You can click here to see if insiders have been buying or selling. For those who like to find winning investments this free list of undervalued companies with recent insider purchasing, could be just the ticket. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
