YouTube members Trump Is Trying To Crush a Law Firm! What Happened To The Rule Of Law?

Summary

Bulwark Takes: YouTube Members Trump Is Trying To Crush a Law Firm! What Happened To The Rule Of Law?

Release Date: March 11, 2025

In this compelling episode of Bulwark Takes, hosted by Sam Stein, the discussion centers around a significant and unprecedented legal maneuver orchestrated by former President Donald Trump. Joined by Ryan Goodman of Just Security, Stein delves deep into the implications of Trump's recent executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, exploring its ramifications on the legal community and the broader principles of rule of law in the United States.

---

1. Introduction to the Situation

Sam Stein opens the episode by setting the stage for a concerning development within the legal realm. He explains that last week, the White House issued an executive order specifically targeting Perkins Coie, a prominent Seattle-based law firm with substantial operations in Washington, D.C.

Sam Stein [00:00]: "Last week, the White House issued an executive order saying essentially that a couple things are going to happen with the firm Perkins Cooey... Trump said that he was going to end the clearances, national security clearances for certain lawyers of Perkins Coey..."

Stein outlines the key components of the executive order:

• Revocation of National Security Clearances: Certain lawyers at Perkins Coie would lose their security clearances.
• Hiring Restrictions: Government agencies would be prohibited from hiring the firm.
• Disclosure of Government Contracts: Contractors would be required to disclose any business ties with Perkins Coie, implicitly discouraging such engagements.

2. Historical Context and Trump’s Motivation

Goodman provides context on why Perkins Coie has become a target for Trump, highlighting the firm's political involvements and past associations.

Ryan Goodman [02:08]: "So it's a very big deal. It's totally unprecedented, let alone the idea that this is supercharged in an executive order targeting a particular firm..."

Goodman notes that Perkins Coie has been linked to significant political activities, including involvement with the Fusion GPS Russia dossier in 2016, which has not been forgotten by Trump. Additionally, the firm's employment of Mark Elias, a notable voting rights lawyer on the Democratic side until his departure in 2021, may have further fueled Trump's animosity.

3. Implications for the Legal Community

The executive order is described as an unprecedented attack on a single law firm, raising alarms about the broader impact on legal practices and the rule of law.

Ryan Goodman [02:24]: "Because it's really going. It's just targeting a firm like a bill of attainder. It's going after one organization and just not necessarily trying to wipe them out, but it is having a very significant detrimental effect."

Goodman emphasizes that the order not only targets Perkins Coie but also extends its pressure to other organizations that engage with the firm. This creates a chilling effect, discouraging businesses and contractors from associating with Perkins Coie due to fears of jeopardizing their own dealings with the government.

4. Chilling Effects on Legal Representation and Government Contracts

Stein and Goodman discuss how the executive order affects government contractors and their decisions regarding legal representation.

Sam Stein [03:20]: "If you were a contractor, you would really have to think twice about hiring the firm because the threat would be that you might not get your contract approved."

Goodman adds that the firm's dominance and high-profile clients make it a significant target, but the repercussions spread across the legal landscape.

Ryan Goodman [02:36]: "It's trying to throttle it. And whatever one thinks about the direct effects of all of that, which is already large, I think there are these secondary effects which will chill business with the firm in all likelihood."

5. Pattern of Using Government Power

The discussion highlights Trump's consistent use of governmental power to assert influence across various sectors, likening it to his approach with tariffs and other policies.

Sam Stein [04:52]: "...you could say, we don't like this firm. And if you want to do business with the US Government, you cannot use this firm."

This pattern demonstrates a broader strategy of leveraging government authority to penalize entities aligned with opposing political views or actions.

6. Responses Within the Legal Community

Goodman explores potential countermeasures from the legal community, emphasizing the importance of unity among law firms to resist such unprecedented pressures.

Ryan Goodman [05:36]: "But it's only a question of do they have, like, kind of the political will to do it, or are there other ways they could do it that could be smart?"

Stein brings up a recent development reported by the New York Times, where Williams Connolly, a major law firm, agreed to represent Perkins Coie despite fears of backlash.

Sam Stein [06:07]: "There was a story that broke in the New York Times that another major law firm, Williams Connolly, has agreed to represent Perkins in this case."

Goodman interprets this as a potential rallying point for the legal community, suggesting that other firms might follow suit to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

7. Legal Challenges and Potential Litigation

The episode delves into the legal basis for challenging the executive order, considering whether it constitutes unlawful discrimination based on political opinion.

Ryan Goodman [08:14]: "I think that they're being discriminated against by political opinion. And there's also internal laws and regulations that aren't supposed to allow for that."

Goodman anticipates significant litigation risks for the administration, comparing Trump's approach to that of Elon Musk, who similarly disregards legal constraints.

8. Strategies for Litigation and Defense

The conversation turns to possible legal strategies Perkins Coie might employ to contest the executive order, including challenging access restrictions to federal buildings.

Ryan Goodman [11:25]: "...Perkins should say, okay, can we get access to a federal courthouse, you know, and represent ourselves or our clients under that order?"

Goodman suggests that testing the boundaries of the executive order in court could be a pivotal step in defending against what he views as an overreach.

9. Broader Implications for Democracy and Rule of Law

Stein and Goodman express deep concern over the executive order's implications for democracy and the foundational principles of the rule of law in the United States.

Ryan Goodman [04:52]: "That's what's just so stunning and very significant in terms of our democracy and rule of law system."

They argue that such actions undermine the independence of the legal system and set a dangerous precedent for political interference in legal matters.

10. Conclusion and Future Outlook

As the episode wraps up, Stein underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential for significant upheaval within the legal community.

Sam Stein [13:00]: "Well, we're in this place. This is a... I think the fact that Williams has picked it up does suggest to me that the legal world recognizes the severity of the threat."

Goodman remains cautiously optimistic, believing that the courts will protect the rule of law and that collective action among law firms can counteract the administration's pressures.

Ryan Goodman [11:57]: "I do have optimism in some ways, in which the legal system, the courts will protect the rule of law."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Unprecedented Targeting: Trump's executive order singularly targets Perkins Coie, marking an unprecedented move in legal circles.
• Chilling Effect: The order threatens not only Perkins Coie but also other businesses and contractors associated with them, creating widespread apprehension.
• Legal Community Response: While some law firms like Williams Connolly have stepped forward to support Perkins Coie, collective action remains crucial to uphold legal integrity.
• Rule of Law at Stake: The episode underscores the potential erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law due to political interference in legal matters.
• Future Litigation: Perkins Coie is expected to challenge the executive order in court, testing the boundaries of political influence over legal entities.

This episode of Bulwark Takes provides a thorough examination of a critical issue facing the American legal system, offering listeners insightful analysis on the intersection of politics, law, and democratic principles.

Transcript

[Sam Stein]

Hey, guys. Sam Stein back again. I'm joined by Ryan Goodman of Just Security. We are going to be talking about what I think is a fairly insane and alarming development in the legal world. Ryan can. Can correct me if I'm wrong, that assertion. But before we do, of course, subscribe to the feed. All right, Ryan. So this happened last week, but we're kind of sort of still feeling the effects of it. And I think it's had a real chill across legal circles. Last week, the White House issued an executive order saying essentially that a couple things are going to happen with the firm Perkins Cooey, which is a prominent firm based in Seattle, but they have a huge office in D.C. trump said that he was going to end the clearances, national security clearances for certain lawyers of Perkins Coey and that he was going to make it so that agencies could not hire the firm. And then the third thing, as I read it, was that he would say government contracts, contractors would have to disclose if they were doing business with the firm in a clear hint that that would not be approved. Perkins Cooey, again, they have huge clients, Boeing, Microsoft, major government contractors or clients. But the real thing is they do political work or they at least had a big political office. And the people who were involved in the political office, two things that or Trump, and he's been upfront about at least one of them. One was that they're involved in the Fusion GPS Russia dossier that happened in 2016. Trump has never forgiven them or the firm for that. The second one is they employed Mark Elias and Mark Elias was the major voting rights lawyer on the Democratic side of things. He has since left the firm, I believe, in 2021. So he's not even actually at Perkins Coey. But I think Trump probably retains memory of Mark Elias in and anger towards that. You're in these circles, you know, these people. Just how big a deal is this in legal circles?

[Ryan Goodman]

So it's a very big deal. It's totally unprecedented, let alone the idea that this is supercharged in an executive order targeting a particular firm is, you know, something that's unprecedented and on steroids.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

Because it's really going. It's just targeting a firm like a bill of attainder. It's going after one organization and just not necessarily trying to wipe them out, but it is having a very significant detrimental effect.

[Sam Stein]

Why do you say it's not necessarily trying to wipe them out?

[Ryan Goodman]

Oh, I think it's just only that are they so big they can't fail kind of thing like they really are such a super giant law firm. But it's, you know, as you mentioned, it's not just going after the firm, but it's going after those organizations that contract with the firm. And it's like, I think of it sometimes, like international sanctions. If you're, like, going after Cuba and you want to sanction it, then you sanction all the other countries that do business with Cuba. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

So that's really choking it off.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, it's trying to throttle it. And whatever one thinks about the direct effects of all of that, which is already large, I think there are these secondary effects which will chill business with the firm in all likelihood.

[Sam Stein]

And let's say you're a contractor. Let's say you're a government contractor. You need legal representation or you just need lobbying. I'm not totally sure if Perkins does the lobbying side of it, but let's just say legal representation. And Perkins is one of the big firms. They have great Washington experience. At this point, though, if you were a contractor, you would really have to think twice about hiring the firm because the threat would be that you might not get your contract approved.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. So that's one. I even think there's, like, a direct effect of it. So that firm has lots of choices. So why would they go with this particular. The contractor has lots of choices. Why would they go with this particular law firm? You know why? That's the risk. And then I'd add another risk to it as well. That's direct, because that's exactly who's in the bullseye of the executive order. But think about any individual or organization that is doing business with the government or things that they might. They might be subject to certain kinds of investigations by the government from time to time, and they need their lawyers to represent them with people inside the US Government. Do you choose a law firm that is obviously being blacklisted by the President United States, which filters all the way down through the administration? I think that's another angle that this particular law firm has to think about. But that's why it sends a chilling effect across all other law firms. And that's what's just so stunning and very significant in terms of our democracy and rule of law system. That's supposed to be another thing about.

[Sam Stein]

It kind of fits this whole concept that Trump has applied to, for instance, tariffs, which is the US Government is the biggest, baddest, most influential market force on the planet, and we can assert our will on any other, you know, secondary complementary market. And that could be countries, it could be Warfare. It could be literal territory and geography, and it could be law. And you could say, we don't like this firm. And if you want to do business with the US Government, you cannot use this firm. Right. Or if you're an individual who needs to hire a firm, you should not go to that firm because, you know, you will get our attention. And so it just fits that kind of pattern that Trump has applied to virtually everything in his life, which is, when you have power, use it.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. And it's throwing around the weight that he has just by mere dent of the position he occupies. And, you know, the only counterweight to it, in a certain sense, is if the law firms bandy together. If the law firms realize if we don't, the status quo is that we get picked off one by one.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah.

[Ryan Goodman]

Rather, we have to unify, just as the way in which the universities might need to unify as well, by being picked off one by one by different forms of pressure that the administration is putting on them.

[Sam Stein]

Right. Well, they might defund all the universities. They might not care about that. But the. For the law firms. I understand what you're saying, which is, at some point, if all of them banded together, it kind of takes the legal system down itself because you won't have representation from anybody. And I will note a while, right before we jumped on to record this, there was a story that broke in the New York Times that another powers firm, Williams Connolly, has agreed to represent Perkins in this case. Now, not confirmed, but the Times I trust, and they say they have four sources here. I will say they noted in the piece that it was that other firms balked at the idea of picking up the Perkins case because they were fearful, frankly, of working for Perkins, because then you suddenly become a contractor, essentially. So is collective action really a problem here? Or are you. Are you. You know, does the Williams. The decision of Williams Connolly to join the case make you feel better about this?

[Ryan Goodman]

That's a great question. I do think the decision of them to join the case because they're such an important law firm also in the country is an important sign that there might be a rallying around, because I. I'm sure that the law firms would want to rally around. I'm sure that the law firms think that what the administration is doing is wholly illegitimate. So it's only a question of do they have, like, kind of the political will to do it, or are there other ways they could do it that could be smart? For example, one of the other ways this can chill law firms is that they don't want to represent, on a pro bono basis, public interest nonprofit organizations that are litigating against the administration. Well, what if they came out in larger numbers? So it's not like you can pick off one or two by saying, oh, look, they're against.

[Sam Stein]

Oh, so you're saying put four or five firms on an individual case, things.

[Ryan Goodman]

Like that, and more firms coming out on the cases, even if they take individual cases themselves. I think could be another very important sign as litigation is still ramping up.

[Sam Stein]

And what is the case that Perkins has here, that on the legal basis is that they're just being unfairly discriminated against, that this is the unlawful use of contract law? I mean, what is the actual legality or actual letter of law here?

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, I mean, I think that they're being discriminated against by political opinion. And there's also internal laws and regulations that aren't supposed to allow for that. It's difficult in some instances as to whether or not those apply to the President of the United States. But insofar as he filters it down to the agencies, they might not be able to operate on that without significant litigation and litigation risk. But I don't think that that's the other part of the whole Trump administration's approach and the Musk approach. I don't think they're worried about that. I think they think, like, a fine is a price. Like, yes, you're going to fine us for that, or, yes, we're going to have to owe in litigation, but that's the price we're paying.

[Sam Stein]

Well, so for instance. For instance, just playing this out, they didn't have to announce the executive order. They could have just not awarded contracts to anyone who was using Perkins, not told anybody about it and just been like, not, you know, no discrimination here. Right. We're just judging contracts based on their merits. They didn't have to do this, but maybe they wanted to do this to make the point.

[Ryan Goodman]

I completely agree. I've actually thought about that. That in some ways, are there some aspects of this that are not as unusual because Perkins has been associated more with the Democratic clients and the like might. This would be. And in any case, they're not exactly going to be, you know, reaching for Perkins when they need to do certain kinds of government contracting and the like. But this is not some kind of implicit.

[Sam Stein]

No, it's very explicit. It's like it's shoving it in their face, basically telling every other law firm, be careful.

[Ryan Goodman]

Absolutely. And in fact, the stagecraft when Trump signs this Executive Order like the other ones. And he has some aid come and say, Mr. President, this is about the big firms.

[Sam Stein]

He holds it up, you know, shows everybody.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, and. And there's also the, you know, I think a large part of this is just the messaging because he also says the law firms that are part of the globalists. And in fact, the Executive Order has this weird reference at the beginning about that the law firm was working in, working with the donor, George Soros. It's like says the conspiracy theories and the manufacturing of this.

[Sam Stein]

The Jews, man, just up there hanging out, doing our globalist thing. I was talking to a couple lawyers over the weekend about this one because, again, I mean, I don't want to be like, come off as the most ridiculous insider of all time, but I. I hung out with a few and I was just like, this was shocking to them. I mean, Trump has done a lot of really bad things. And in fact, he issued an another executive order against Covington, I believe. But it wasn't as far reaching as this one. And they were just like, blown away by this. And to a person, they're like, there's just no way, no way that judge would ever let this stand because they, having been birthed of the legal system and lived in it, know exactly the show that this would have.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, I think that that's right, too. So there's like, hope in the sense that I do have optimism in some ways, in which the legal system, the courts will protect the rule of law. And in particular, you know, Perkins could be real smart about how they start to litigate against the Executive Order. There's a part of the executive order that's also just so astonishing. It essentially looks like it's trying to bar employees, attorneys from Perkins from going into federal buildings.

[Sam Stein]

Really?

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. Yeah. So the exact. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Jesus. Okay.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. That the heads of agency shall issue, quote, unquote, guidance limiting official access from federal government buildings to employees of Perkins Coy, when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States, which he has just outlined in the Executive Order, ways in which it's in tension with the interests of the United States. So I think, you know, Perkins should say, okay, can we get access to a federal courthouse, you know, and represent ourselves or our clients or under that order?

[Sam Stein]

It doesn't seem like it.

[Ryan Goodman]

That's why I think they should test that. Like, maybe that's one of the first ways in which they could test the order.

[Sam Stein]

It seems like a little bit of a precarious idea to go pick a fight with a major law firm because, I mean, their lawyers are going to do things. Right. I mean, I don't know what the issues with their, with respect to discovery are here or anything like that. Would they, would they be able to sort of dig around and try to find out how, what went into the exact crafting of this executive order? Could they try and pursue that?

[Ryan Goodman]

That's a great question. I hadn't thought about it. I thought about it in a different way, which is what did go into the crafting? Yeah. Who communicated with whom? And it's just ridiculous in the sense of like, even the reference to George Soros. I want to know what was the government fact finding that went into this before they issued the executive order and that should come out through discovery. Absolutely. It's like one of the reasons in which one doesn't want to sue another individual. Because you're going to be.

[Sam Stein]

You're going to expose yourself.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yes, I think that's a really nice point.

[Sam Stein]

Well, we're in this place. This is a, this is. I mean, I, I can't stress enough how much people are bothered by this specifically. And we'll see how it goes. I think the fact that Williams has picked it up does suggest to me that the legal world recognizes the severity of threat. Williams is not a small deal. It's a, it is a massive firm and they're going to put their weight behind it. So we'll see. Ryan, thanks for joining, man. Appreciate it, as always. We'll be in touch. Okay, great.

[Ryan Goodman]

Great to see you.

[Sam Stein]

Take care.