If you’d told a Big Law partner a few years ago that their security clearance would be on the chopping block because of a former associate’s resume, they’d have laughed you out of the room. It sounds like a plot from a legal thriller. But for firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, it’s just another Tuesday in the current political climate.
Honestly, the legal world is reeling. We’re seeing a level of trump law firm executive orders skepticism that isn't just about politics—it’s about the survival of the independent bar. When the White House started firing off orders aimed at specific firms last year, it wasn't just a shot across the bow. It was a full-on boarding party.
The skepticism isn't coming from just one side of the aisle, either. You’ve got federal judges appointed by both parties looking at these orders and basically saying, "You can't do that."
The Retaliation Roadmap: Why Firms Are Worried
The whole saga kicked off when the administration began targeting firms based on their past client lists or the political work of their attorneys.
📖 Related: Will Trump Lower Mortgage Interest Rates: What Homebuyers Need to Know Now
For instance, Perkins Coie got hit hard in March 2025. Why? Mostly because of their work with Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Steele dossier years ago. The executive order sought to pull security clearances for their lawyers and freeze them out of federal contracts. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. If you represent the "wrong" person, your entire business model might just get torched by a pen stroke.
Judge Beryl Howell didn't mince words in her May 2025 opinion. She called the move an "unprecedented attack" on the foundation of the American judicial system. It’s that kind of judicial pushback that fuels the current trump law firm executive orders skepticism. Lawyers are trained to look at the law as a set of rules everyone plays by. When those rules get swapped for what looks like a "score-settling" playbook, the industry gets understandably twitchy.
The "Deal or Fight" Dilemma
Firms basically had two choices: head to court or head to the negotiating table.
- The Fighters: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. They sued and, so far, they’re winning. They’ve managed to get permanent injunctions against several of these orders, with judges ruling that the government can’t just punish people for their First Amendment associations.
- The Deal-Makers: Paul Weiss was the first to blink. They struck a deal to get their order rescinded by promising millions of dollars in free legal services to the government. Since then, about eight other top firms followed that framework.
But here’s the kicker: some people think these deals might actually be illegal. Critics point to the Antideficiency Act, which basically says the government can't accept voluntary services it hasn't paid for. It’s a mess. If the deals are illegal, and the orders are unconstitutional, where does that leave the firms?
The 2026 Landscape: Is the Chilling Effect Real?
We’re now deep into January 2026, and the dust still hasn't settled. While the flurry of new orders against firms has slowed down, the damage to the "Big Law" psyche is pretty deep.
Bloomberg Law editors Chris Opfer and Alessandra Rafferty recently noted that these attacks are still changing how firms operate. Are firms passing on controversial clients because they’re afraid of the White House? Probably. It’s hard to prove a negative, but the "chilling effect" is the main topic of conversation at every legal conference right now.
✨ Don't miss: Why Los Angeles Apparel Billboards Still Dominate Your Commute
The skepticism is further fueled by the administration's new focus. They've pivoted to orders involving Artificial Intelligence and defense contractors. For example, the "Prioritizing the Warfighter" order from January 7, 2025, now prohibits defense contractors from doing stock buybacks if they aren't meeting performance standards.
While that sounds like a win for taxpayers, lawyers are skeptical about the "underperformance" definitions. Who decides what "insufficient production speed" is? If the government can use an order to freeze a company’s dividends, the potential for executive overreach is massive.
What Most People Get Wrong About These Orders
There’s a common misconception that these orders are just "the way things are done now." That’s not really true. Historically, executive orders were used for internal government management or emergency actions. Using them to target the business licenses or security clearances of private entities because of their political associations is a brand-new frontier.
Real-World Impacts in 2026:
- Security Clearances: Hundreds of lawyers faced the threat of losing access to the classified info they need to do their jobs.
- Federal Contracts: Firms that have spent decades building government practices suddenly found themselves blacklisted.
- Pro Bono Commitments: Some firms are now essentially "taxed" with free labor to stay in the government's good graces.
Where the Courts Stand Right Now
As of January 16, 2026, the battle has moved to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The administration is appealing the losses it took in the lower courts.
Most experts—even the ones who usually lean conservative—are skeptical that the administration can win here. The First Amendment protections for "freedom of association" are pretty robust. If a law firm can't represent a political candidate without being destroyed by the next administration, the whole concept of a "fair trial" or "legal representation" goes out the window.
Actionable Insights for Legal and Business Professionals
If you’re navigating this landscape, you can't just ignore the headlines. Here’s what you actually need to do:
- Review Your Retainer Agreements: If you’re a firm, you need to be clear with clients about the potential "political risk" of representation. It sounds crazy, but it’s the 2026 reality.
- Audit Your Government Contracts: If your business relies on federal work, look at your "key personnel." If they have a history that might trigger an EO, you need a contingency plan.
- Monitor the DC Circuit: The January 26 deadline for motions in the consolidated law firm cases is a huge milestone. The rulings there will set the tone for the rest of the year.
- Watch the Antideficiency Act Developments: If you’re one of the firms that "settled," keep a close eye on the congressional inquiries into whether those pro bono deals are actually legal.
The trump law firm executive orders skepticism isn't just a trend. It's a fundamental disagreement over how much power the President should have over the private legal sector. Whether you think it's "draining the swamp" or "weaponizing the government," the reality is that the rules of the game have changed.
Keep your eyes on the DC Circuit. That’s where the real story will end.
Next Steps for You:
You should begin by auditing your current federal contracts for any "performance-based" clauses that might be subject to the new defense contractor EOs. Additionally, verify if any of your lead counsel are affiliated with firms currently under appellate review to ensure there's no risk of a sudden loss of security clearance or building access during critical litigation.