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

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less