Post Reports: The Law Firms Cutting Deals with Trump – April 16, 2025

In this compelling episode of Post Reports hosted by Laura Benchoff, The Washington Post delves into a significant and controversial development: President Donald Trump's aggressive actions against prominent law firms. Through in-depth reporting and expert insights from investigative reporter Mark Berman and colleague Colby Itkowicz, the episode explores how Trump's administration is leveraging executive orders to target law firms perceived as adversaries, the repercussions for the legal industry, and the broader implications for the American justice system.

Trump's Assault on Big Law

The episode opens with Laura Benchoff outlining President Donald Trump's intensified efforts to retaliate against those he believes have wronged him since returning to office. This retaliation extends to some of America's most influential law firms.

Laura Benchoff [00:02]: "Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has tried to get back at those who he believes have wronged him. And that includes some of the country's most prominent law firms."

Mark Berman expands on this by detailing the extent of Trump's tactics:

Mark Berman [00:13]: "Donald Trump is ramping up his assault on big law with the president issue. Trump has signed more than 100 executive orders. And in some of those orders, Trump is targeting law firms directly tied to prosecutors involved in cases that have been against him."

Mechanics of the Executive Orders

The crux of Trump's strategy involves issuing specific executive orders aimed at isolating and punishing targeted law firms. These orders are meticulously crafted to restrict the firms' access and operational capabilities within the federal government.

Mark Berman [01:00]: "He's targeting individual law firms. Each gets their own executive order. ... he'll order the executive branch to strip them of their government contracts. He'll say that they should lose security clearances. He'll say that they should not be allowed to enter government buildings. He'll also say that the employees should not be hired for government jobs."

This systematic approach effectively "ices out" the firms, limiting their ability to interact with government entities and secure lucrative contracts.

Law Firms' Response: Fighting Back or Cutting Deals

Faced with these aggressive measures, law firms find themselves at a crossroads: challenge the executive orders in court or capitulate by making concessions to the Trump administration.

Fighting the Orders

A select group of law firms, including Perkins Coie, Wilmer Hale, Jenner and Block, and Sussman Godfrey, have chosen to resist. They have initiated legal battles to block the executive orders, seeking judicial relief and ultimately aiming for a Supreme Court review.

Mark Berman [11:56]: "Four different law firms have sued to fight his orders... the judges have all, in various ways, said that these orders deeply concerned them, describing them as shocking."

Despite initial successes in having the orders temporarily blocked, the legal fight is expected to escalate, potentially reaching the highest court in the land.

Cutting Deals with the Administration

In contrast, more than nine law firms have opted to negotiate terms with the Trump administration, pledging nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal services for causes favored by the president.

Colby Itkowicz [00:43]: "Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump? $100 million. Another hundred million dollars for damages that they've done."

These firms argue that such deals are necessary for their survival amid mounting pressures, though this decision has sparked significant internal dissent.

Controversies Surrounding the Deals

The nature of the pro bono work pledged by these firms raises ethical and professional concerns. Traditionally, pro bono services are dedicated to assisting vulnerable populations, free from political influence.

Mark Berman [07:13]: "Combating antisemitism, helping veterans, things of that nature."

However, attorneys fear that aligning their pro bono efforts with administration-approved causes may compromise their independence and divert resources from traditional pro bono commitments.

Mark Berman [07:17]: "There's only so many hours in the year, so they said those attorneys are gonna be doing that at the expense of this other work."

Moreover, the lack of clarity from the White House regarding specific cases or causes adds to the uncertainty and apprehension within the legal community.

Industry Backlash and Internal Dissent

The decision by firms to concede to Trump's demands has not gone unchallenged. Many lawyers within these firms express profound disapproval, leading to resignations and public denouncements.

Mark Berman [15:48]: "Several attorneys at a number of the law firms that cut deals have quit in protest. Some of them have written public letters explaining why they're quitting and why they're leaving their firms."

One notable instance includes Rachel Cohen, an associate who resigned from Skadden Arps in protest of the firm's agreement with the administration.

Rachel Cohen [16:23]: "We're reaching a point where there's been a lot of correct attention on attacks... to get there at all."

These internal conflicts highlight a deep-seated ethical dilemma facing the legal profession.

Legal and Systemic Implications

The episode underscores the broader implications of Trump's actions on the American legal system. By targeting law firms, the administration threatens the foundational principles of legal representation and the independence of the judiciary.

Mark Berman [14:12]: "These are people who say if the administration is able to put pressure on law firms and dictate who they can represent, what causes they can or can't take up, they say that weakens the system for everybody else."

There is a palpable fear of a chilling effect, where even non-targeted firms might hesitate to take on cases adverse to the administration, thereby restricting access to justice for many.

Mark Berman [15:07]: "There's a big fear of that... one former official in Biden's administration... said that they initially had a pro bono lawyer from a major law firm... the attorney said that the firm discovered a conflict of interest and dropped this person as a client."

Such developments could erode public trust in the legal system and impede the ability of individuals and entities to seek legal redress against governmental actions.

Conclusion: The Future of Big Law and Justice

Post Reports paints a sobering picture of the current legal landscape under Trump's administration. The unprecedented targeting of law firms not only jeopardizes their operational viability but also poses existential threats to the integrity and accessibility of the American justice system.

Mark Berman [19:21]: "They say that if these firms cut deals, if these firms are intimidated, if these firms can't pick and choose who to represent, that trickles down throughout the entire legal system."

As the legal battles unfold and the Supreme Court potentially becomes the battleground for these conflicts, the outcome will significantly determine the resilience of legal institutions against political pressures.

Notable Quotes:

• Laura Benchoff [00:02]: "President Donald Trump has tried to get back at those who he believes have wronged him. And that includes some of the country's most prominent law firms."

• Mark Berman [01:00]: "He is essentially ordering the executive branch to ice out these firms."

• Colby Itkowicz [00:43]: "Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump? $100 million. Another hundred million dollars for damages that they've done."

• Rachel Cohen [16:23]: "We're reaching a point where there's been a lot of correct attention on attacks... to get there at all."

This episode of Post Reports offers a critical examination of the intersection between politics and the legal profession, highlighting the profound challenges faced by law firms and the potential long-term consequences for the rule of law in the United States.