Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Opinion

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Getty Images, sommart

Project Overview

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy explaining in practical terms what the administration’s executive orders and other executive actions mean for all of us. Each of these actions springs from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page playbook that serves as the foundation for these measures. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies adopted by countries such as Hungary, that have eroded democratic norms and have adopted authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.


Part 3: Executive Orders and the Legal Profession

In this installment, we examine executive orders and related actions that impact the independence and integrity of lawyers and the legal profession, both within and beyond the Department of Justice (DOJ). This column focuses on measures taken by the Trump administration that target law firms perceived as opposing the President. These firms may have engaged in litigation challenging the current or previous administration’s actions or employed attorneys who have done so—or are perceived to have done so. Additionally, other executive actions have raised concerns about broader threats to the legal system’s independence.

Project 2025: Shaping the Legal Profession to Serve Presidential Priorities

Project 2025 addresses the legal profession through its analysis of the DOJ, asserting that the department has “lost its way.” It claims the DOJ has been overtaken by an “unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class” and “radical Left ideologues.” The document further contends that the DOJ’s litigation decisions should align with the President’s political agenda—a stance that would compromise the department’s traditional role as an independent prosecutorial agency and would risk politicizing its operations.

Executive Actions Targeting Lawyers’ Independence and Access to Legal Services

Continuing Project 2025’s push to challenge the legal profession’s independence, President Trump issued a series of executive orders and related actions aimed at restricting the autonomy and integrity of legal practitioners.

Several of these directives specifically target law firms engaged in investigations or legal representation of political opponents. The measures include:

  • Suspending security clearances for attorneys representing individuals or organizations opposing the administration.
  • Restricting access to government buildings and personnel, limiting firms’ ability to engage with federal agencies.
  • Terminating or barring firms from federal contracts, cutting off essential funding and work opportunities.
  • Imposing restrictions on legal advocacy, limiting the claims firms can pursue and arguments they may present—particularly when they conflict with administration priorities.
  • Threatening adverse actions against firms’ clients, discouraging individuals and organizations from hiring these firms by subjecting them to similar punitive measures.

If unchallenged, these actions could have profound consequences. Affected firms risk exclusion from federal litigation, the loss of government partnerships, and the inability to represent clients whose legal positions diverge from the administration’s agenda. These measures pose a direct threat to the firms’ survival and, more broadly, to the independence of the legal profession itself.

Why This Matters

The cumulative effect of these executive actions is to erode lawyers’ independence, coerce compliance with the administration’s agenda, and punish those who dissent. The independence of legal professionals has been fundamental in ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice since its inception.

These measures have far-reaching consequences:

Eroding Government Accountability

By penalizing firms that take positions contrary to the administration, these executive actions serve as a warning designed to intimidate others. This chilling effect weakens lawyers’ willingness to challenge government policies and undermines their role in checking unconstitutional executive power.

Infringing on Free Speech

These actions also punish firms for expressing or defending viewpoints deemed unfavorable by the administration. In striking down one such order, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell stated that it “…send[s] the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.” By targeting firms perceived as adversarial, these measures instill fear across the legal profession and broader sectors—including non-profits, educational institutions, and advocacy organizations—creating significant risks for those who challenge government policies.

Reducing Access to Legal Representation and Pro Bono Services

These orders discourage individuals, businesses, and organizations from seeking counsel from disfavored firms, jeopardizing the firms’ financial sustainability and limiting access to legal representation.

The administration has also leveraged executive actions to pressure firms into providing so-called “pro bono” services on the government’s behalf—amounting to nearly $1 billion in legal work. Traditionally, pro bono work serves individuals and organizations in genuine need. However, legal representation for the government does not fit this definition, raising concerns about the distortion of this professional obligation.

Reports indicate a growing reluctance among law firms to provide traditional pro bono services or to take on cases that challenge government actions or protect vulnerable communities due to fear of reprisals.

Undermining the Independence of the Legal System

Threats against law firms restrict the range of legal arguments attorneys can present in court, jeopardizing the integrity of the justice system. If a president can dictate which clients or issues a lawyer may represent, the very foundation of an independent legal profession—and the rule of law itself—is at risk. Legal decisions must remain free from political interference.

Key Takeaway

These executive actions threaten to reshape the legal profession into one governed by political retribution rather than by the rule of law. They grant the president the power to dictate how firms operate and whom they serve, violating constitutional principles and undermining the legal profession’s fundamental right to represent clients free from government interference. The broader impact on the justice system would be severe and far-reaching.

Part One, The Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: The Federal Workforce

The Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Efforts To Eliminate DEI

Lawyers Defending American Democracy is dedicated to galvanizing lawyers “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less