The Capitulation To Trump of Some of America’s Top Law Firms

this is extremely dangerous

The capitulation of some major American law firms to Donald Trump’s increasingly authoritarian demands marks a low point in the profession’s historic role as a bulwark against tyranny. It is not simply a matter of prestige firms agreeing to perform “pro bono” work for veterans and law enforcement—framed by Trump as patriotic and nonpartisan.

It is a story of coercion, cowardice, and complicity. Under threat of executive orders that weaponize federal contracting rules and security clearances, some of the nation’s most respected firms have aligned themselves with a president who continues to show open disdain for legal norms, judicial independence, and constitutional guardrails.

At least nine of the most elite law firms in the country—among them Paul, Weiss; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; and Simpson Thacher—have signed agreements pledging nearly $1 billion worth of free legal work in support of Trump administration priorities. That work is not being coordinated through neutral bar associations or longstanding access-to-justice initiatives.

It is being directed, in part, by the White House Counsel’s Office and a newly formed legal compliance task force headed by Trump loyalists. In effect, these firms have accepted a federal client in all but name, performing subsidized legal work on terms that the administration dictates—and with the implied threat that failure to comply could result in real consequences, including loss of government contracts and access to sensitive information.

This is not theoretical. Executive orders issued in March and April 2025 authorized federal agencies to terminate security clearances for attorneys involved in litigation against the United States and banned firms from participating in federal procurement processes if they were deemed to have “subverted national interests.”

These vague, sweeping criteria amount to political litmus tests—and they are being applied in a system with virtually no due process or oversight. In some cases, individual attorneys have reportedly been subjected to surveillance, questioned at federal facilities, or barred from entering courthouses on the basis of unsupported allegations of “disloyalty.”

In this environment, it is hardly surprising that firms have made the cold calculation to appease rather than resist. But the consequences of that calculation are profound and corrosive. Legal ethics demand independence, impartiality, and fidelity to the rule of law—not to a regime, not to a president, and certainly not to a political campaign masquerading as government policy.

When law firms tether themselves to a figure like Donald Trump—whose contempt for judicial institutions is rivaled only by his eagerness to exploit them—they degrade their legitimacy, compromise their professional obligations, and send a chilling message to younger attorneys about what is acceptable in the practice of law.

Already the fallout is being felt. At Simpson Thacher, one associate, Siunik Moradian, resigned in protest, writing in a viral letter that the firm had “bent the knee and kissed the ring of authoritarianism.” Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, one of the oldest firms in the country, has seen multiple partners depart amid internal disputes over the scope of its cooperation with the administration.

At Kirkland & Ellis, rumors of an internal memo instructing lawyers to avoid certain politically sensitive pro bono cases have sparked fears of soft censorship. Across the profession, more than 800 law firms have joined amicus briefs or public letters condemning the executive orders as unconstitutional, un-American, and unethical.

But public condemnation may not be enough. The damage is already underway. Civil rights groups report that law firm interest in impact litigation has dried up. Cases challenging voting restrictions, LGBTQ+ discrimination, and police abuses are struggling to find co-counsel. Some firms have quietly withdrawn from cases involving Trump administration officials or policies. Others have demanded that partner names be scrubbed from pleadings to avoid retaliation. The fear is real. And that fear is exactly what the administration intended to instill.

This is not merely a legal story—it is a democratic tale. The legal profession is supposed to be a pillar of accountability. It is meant to defend the unpopular, to challenge the unconstitutional, to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. When law firms begin to act like arms of the state—or worse, arms of a vindictive president—the balance of power tilts. Courts become stage sets. Legal arguments become camouflage. And the machinery of law begins to resemble the machinery of obedience.

Some, thankfully, are refusing to go along. A number of former federal judges and conservative legal scholars—including Paul Clement—have spoken out against Trump’s actions. Clement has even taken the rare step of representing WilmerHale in a lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s anti-firm executive orders. His position is not partisan; it is principled. It is based on the belief that the legal profession must remain independent even—and especially—when under siege.

New law firms are emerging to fill the vacuum left by those who have capitulated. Nonprofits and public defenders are coordinating to support civil servants and whistleblowers who are increasingly in the administration’s crosshairs.

Legal clinics at universities have seen a spike in applications from students who want to use their degrees not to profit, but to protect democracy. And a growing number of general counsels at major corporations are quietly urging the firms they retain to take a stand—lest they become complicit by association.

But resistance is not a given. The pressures on the legal profession are mounting. And if more firms continue to rationalize their collaboration as “strategic” or “necessary,” the entire notion of an independent bar could become a relic. Donald Trump understands the power of the law, not as a constraint but as a tool for dominance. His use of legal institutions as instruments of political control is not new—but the legal community’s willingness to enable it is.

The question now is whether America’s lawyers will choose to be remembered as defenders of the Constitution or as silent contractors in the architecture of autocracy. The choice is no longer theoretical. The time for courage is now.