Does Trump’s Executive Orders Threaten Legal Practice in the US?
- Insights Digest
- Mar 23
- 3 min read
Swagata Laxmi Bhowmick. 23 March 2025.
Having come into office on January 10 2025, President Trump’s executive orders recently stripped two prominent law firms of their security clearances. While the government can grant or rescind it, what does this move signal for legal practice in America?
Trump’s Executive Orders
On February 25, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order suspending the security clearances of two lawyers from Covington & Burling, the firm that represented Jack Smith. Mr Smith was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate the ‘January 6th Insurrection’ on the U.S. Capitol following the 2020 presidential election, which led to Trump’s second impeachment under the Biden administration, which was later revoked.
On March 6, 2025, a second executive order was issued against the lawyers of Perkins Coie, stripping them of security clearance as well as terminating its contracts with federal agencies on the grounds of racial discrimination. The firm is known for representing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. The firm has ties with Fusion GPS, which created the ‘Steele Dossier’, containing unverified research on Trump’s ties with Russia.
Â
A Broader Strategy
Legal experts view the executive orders as part of a broader effort to discourage law firms from representing individuals or entities opposing the current administration. Former US attorney John Seymour described this as a contemporary interpretation of Theodore Roosevelt’s idea of the "bully pulpit." However, unlike Roosevelt, who used his platform to inspire and advocate for change, Seymour argues that Trump uses his power to intimidate opponents.
It is indeed a vindictive attack on the legal profession and the rule of law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and the right to legal representation. By targeting the Democratic-linked law firms, the administration is intimidating firms for representing conflicting interests. This could prevent lawyers from taking controversial cases, which would limit people’s right to fair representation, violating the core part of the Bill of Rights.
Â
The Future of Legal Practice in the US
In response, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order. On March 12, a federal judge blocked a vast portion of the executive order, ruling that national security concerns were used as a pretext to punish the law firm on personal grievance. A court can hold an executive order unlawful if it violates the constitution or the federal law. This executive order is compared to a ‘bill of attainder’, a legislative act inflicting punishment without trial, expressly barred under the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment makes taking away rights without fair legal processes unconstitutional.
Â
American philosopher Robert Paul Wolff defines violence as the "illegitimate or unauthorised use of force’’. From this perspective, Trump’s executive orders can be seen as an illegitimate force that undermines the rule of law and threatens US democracy. His actions disrupt the balance in a democracy, where legal authority should come with a mutual obligation. When leaders bypass this process with unlawful actions, it weakens the state's legitimacy and makes democracy seem less trustworthy.
Â
In using retribution to suppress powerful opponents, one might argue that his regime is no less than a tyranny. His incursion into the legal industry signals an attempt to weaken institutions and discourage opposition. Meanwhile, the judiciary keeps the executive branch in check and ensures that the rule of law operates. However, it does raise crucial questions about the future of big law firms in America and their ability to resist political intimidation.
References
Â
Â