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

A confrontation between ICE agents and Minneapolis residents.

A child of Holocaust survivors draws parallels between Nazi Germany and modern U.S. immigration enforcement, examining ICE tactics, civil rights, and moral leadership.

Getty Images, Stephen Maturen

The Inhumanity of Trump and Its Impact on America

I am a child of holocaust survivors, my parents having fled Germany at the last minute in 1939 before the war started, and so I am well-versed in what life was like for Jews in Germany in the 30s under the Nazi regime. My father and other relatives were hunted by the Gestapo (secret police) and many relatives died in concentration camps.

When I have watched videos and seen photos of the way in which ICE agents treat the people that they accost—whether they are undocumented (illegal) immigrants, immigrants who are here lawfully, or even U.S. citizens—I was reminded of the images of Nazi S.A. men (a quasi-military force that was part of the Nazi party) beating and demeaning Jews in public in the years after Hitler came to power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trials Show Successful Ballot Initiatives Are Only the Beginning of Restoring Abortion Access

Anti-choice lawmakers are working to gut voter-approved amendments protecting abortion access.

Trials Show Successful Ballot Initiatives Are Only the Beginning of Restoring Abortion Access

The outcome of two trials in the coming weeks could shape what it will look like when voters overturn state abortion bans through future ballot initiatives.

Arizona and Missouri voters in November 2024 struck down their respective near-total abortion bans. Both states added abortion access up to fetal viability as a right in their constitutions, although Arizonans approved the amendment by a much wider margin than Missouri voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A mother and daughter standing together.

Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother, Heather Jackson, stand in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Courtesy of Lambda Legal

The trans athletes at the center of Supreme Court cases don’t fit conservative stereotypes

Conservatives have increasingly argued that transgender women and girls have an unfair advantage in sports, that their hormone levels make them stronger and faster. And for that reason, they say, trans women should be banned from competition.

But Lindsay Hecox wasn’t faster. She tried out for her track and field team at Boise State University and didn’t make the cut. A 2020 Idaho bill banned her from a club team, anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government
The U.S. White House.
Getty Images, Caroline Purser

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing them with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less