Explaining Trump's Fight With Big Law Firms

Summary

Summary of "Explaining Trump's Fight With Big Law Firms" - The NPR Politics Podcast

Release Date: June 2, 2025

In this episode of The NPR Politics Podcast, NPR's Miles Parks, Carrie Johnson, and Domenico Montanaro delve into former President Donald Trump's contentious relationship with major law firms. The discussion explores the executive orders targeting these firms, the motivations behind such actions, the firms' responses, and the broader implications for the legal and political landscape.

---

Introduction to the Conflict

The episode opens with the trio setting the stage for a deep dive into the escalating tensions between the Trump administration and prominent law firms. The conversation quickly pivots to the pivotal executive orders announced by Trump targeting these legal giants.

Carrie Johnson provides an overview of the executive orders:

"The president basically sought to ban lawyers from federal buildings, to ask about the clients of these lawyers and whether they had contracts with the federal government, and then maybe to take steps to get rid of those contracts and finally to yank the security clearances of many of these lawyers."
[01:02]

She emphasizes the significance of these actions by highlighting the reliance of lawyers on access to classified information to effectively defend their clients. Removing their security clearances effectively sidelines them from federal work.

Trump's Motivations: Retribution and Policy Frustration

Miles Parks probes into Trump's reasons for targeting these firms:

"What did these law firms do that was so bad in Donald Trump's eyes?"
[01:35]

Carrie Johnson responds by outlining Trump's grievances:

"According to President Trump, these big law firms needed to be held accountable that they were using their power and influence in ways that certainly frustrated some of his policy goals and in his view, ran afoul of the law."
[01:39]

She cites specific areas of contention:

• Immigration enforcement and priorities
• LGBTQ rights advocacy
• Environmental cases

Trump's actions are portrayed as punitive measures aimed at firms that opposed or investigated his policies, particularly those involved in the Russia investigation.

A Pattern of Retribution in Authoritarian Regimes

Domenico Montanaro contextualizes Trump's actions within a global trend:

"Part of a broader pattern of retribution. And, you know, we've seen this around the world when you have regimes that try to take power and try to consolidate power in one place, a lot of autocracies around the world."
[02:23]

He draws parallels between Trump's tactics and those of authoritarian leaders who target major institutions—such as lawyers, judges, journalists, and educational institutions—to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

Targeted Law Firms and Legal Challenges

Carrie Johnson details specific law firms targeted by Trump and the reasons behind their selection:

"He's gone after Wilmer Hale because it employed Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who investigated Trump's campaign's ties to Russia. He went after Jenner and Block because they employed Andrew Weissman, one of the prosecutors on Mueller's team."
[03:29]

The targeted firms argue that the executive orders constitute unconstitutional violations, framing them as retaliatory measures for past investigations.

Settlements: Pro Bono Deals Under Scrutiny

Miles Parks shifts focus to law firms that chose to settle with the administration:

"I am curious about what those deals looked like. What exactly did they agree to do?"
[04:12]

Carrie Johnson explains the settlements:

"About nine law firms that settled agreed to do pro bono work, provide free legal services in the amount of nearly $1 billion for causes both they and the Trump administration seem to want to advance."
[04:12]

Potential areas for this pro bono work include:

• Veterans affairs
• Immigration
• Defense of police officers involved in fatalities

However, the legality of these settlements is under question. Yale Law Professor Harold Koh is cited discussing the lack of mutual understanding in these agreements:

"The law firms thought it meant one thing, and President Trump and his team seem to think it means another. You know, a contract that you make with a gun to your head is not a contract."
[05:40]
[Harold Koh]

Potential Legal and Ethical Violations

Carrie Johnson raises concerns about the legality of the settlements:

"These deals could violate either ethics codes for lawyers and law firms, or maybe even criminal laws or civil laws. They could give rise to conflicts of interest between lawyers and law firms and their clients."
[06:20]

Congresswoman April McLean Delaney is quoted expressing skepticism about the pro bono agreements:

"Pro bono was never for the United States government or for a billionaire president."
[07:04]
[April McLean Delaney]

These ethical dilemmas have led to unease within the legal community, with young lawyers reconsidering their affiliations with the affected firms.

Firms Fighting Back: Legal Battles and Court Rulings

For law firms choosing to challenge the executive orders, the legal response has been vigorous and largely successful. Carrie Johnson notes that:

"Four of the law firms sued over them. And they're winning in court. They're arguing that these executive orders amount to retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment."
[08:52]

Judges, regardless of their political appointments, have favored the firms, with some even criticizing the settlements as historically detrimental.

Broader Political Implications and Future Prospects

Domenico Montanaro reflects on the broader political ramifications:

"When these things pile up, the more people seem to and feel like The Trump administration. Trump himself is not as focused on the things that got him elected in the first place, like prices."
[10:00]

He suggests that the administration's focus on targeting law firms for retribution may alienate the broader Republican base ahead of the 2026 midterms, potentially diminishing Trump's influence.

Carrie Johnson adds that the law firms' pro bono work supports small nonprofits fighting against the administration's policies, effectively countering Trump's agenda.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with the hosts emphasizing the ongoing legal battles and the uncertain future of the relationship between big law firms and political administrations. The conflicts highlight tensions between legal integrity, political power, and ethical boundaries within the American legal system.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Carrie Johnson on the purpose of the executive orders:
  "If you can't get in the door and access those files to defend your client, then you're totally boxed out of that market. You can't do your job."
  [01:35]

• Harold Koh on the validity of the settlements:
  "A contract that you make with a gun to your head is not a contract."
  [05:40]

• April McLean Delaney on pro bono ethics:
  "Pro bono was never for the United States government or for a billionaire president."
  [07:04]

---

This episode provides a comprehensive examination of the fraught interactions between Trump's administration and major law firms, shedding light on the legal, ethical, and political complexities that underpin this conflict.

Transcript

[Domenico Montanaro]

Hello, My name is Mr. Stinson and I'm the coach of Miraloma High School's speech and debate team.

[Carrie Johnson]

We are currently at the Chassis Speech and Debate State Championship.

[Miles Parks]

This podcast was recorded at 1:06pm on Monday, June 2, 2025.

[Carrie Johnson]

Things may have changed by the time you hear this.

[Domenico Montanaro]

Hopefully we've been able to snatch some trophies.

[Carrie Johnson]

Go, Matadors. I am sure we have some future lawyers in that bunch. I'm sure.

[Miles Parks]

I was thinking future NPR Politics podcasters, maybe, maybe, maybe.

[Domenico Montanaro]

This is that time of year for all those awards and competitions, so good luck.

[Miles Parks]

Yeah. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Domenico Montanaro]

And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[Miles Parks]

And today on the show, law firms and how they were responding to pressure from the Donald Trump White House. So, Kerry, you have reported a lot on this, and I want to start this spring when the president announced a number of executive orders targeting law firms. Can you explain what those executive orders did?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. The president basically sought to ban lawyers from federal buildings, to ask about the clients of these lawyers and whether they had contracts with the federal government, and then maybe to take steps to get rid of those contracts and finally to yank the security clearances of many of these lawyers. And, Miles, that matters a lot because so much of what lawyers have to do relates to classified information. And if you can't get in the door and access those files to defend your client, then you're totally boxed out of that market. You can't do your job.

[Miles Parks]

I mean, why? What did these law firms do that was so bad in Donald Trump's eyes?

[Carrie Johnson]

Well, according to President Trump, these big law firms needed to be held accountable that they were using their power and influence in ways that certainly frustrated some of his policy goals and in his view, ran afoul of the law. He talked in particular about immigration enforcement and priorities and some of the work these firms had done with LGBTQ rights, some environmental cases, and also sorts of other things. So he wanted to punish them and get them in line.

[Miles Parks]

Domenico, it does feel like this fits into a broader trend. Right. Of Donald Trump. I mean, he promised on the campaign trail last year that this was going to be a retribution presidency, that he was going to target his political enemies. Is this part of that?

[Domenico Montanaro]

Absolutely. Part of a broader pattern of retribution. And, you know, we've seen this around the world when you have regimes that try to take power and try to consolidate power in one place, a Lot of autocracies around the world. The first place that they push to try to consolidate that power is going after big institutions. Lawyers, judges, journalists, colleges. You're trying to control the courts, you're trying to control what's said about you in the public sphere, and you're trying to control what people learn.

[Carrie Johnson]

In some of the firms that Trump has targeted, he's targeted in part because of who they hired. He went after this Wilmer Hale law firm, in part because it employed Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who investigated Trump's campaign's ties to Russia. He went after Jenner and Block because, at one employed Andrew Weissman, one of the prosecutors on Mueller's team. And some of the firms that are trying to fight back against these executive orders basically say this is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, and it's explicit payback for some of those investigations.

[Miles Parks]

I mean, is there any precedence for what the President has been doing here? How has the legal world been responding?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, no one can remember something like this happening. In fact, I talked with Steve Brill, who founded the American Lawyer magazine and the Court TV network back in the day, and he said this was so distressing that it kept him up at night, and he could not believe that the firms were in this situation. And, you know, Miles, some of the firms have decided to settle with the federal government, and others have decided to fight back. And the ones that have fought back in court are largely winning, even with judges appointed by conservative presidents in the past.

[Miles Parks]

Well, I want to center on the ones who've settled first, because I am curious about what those deals looked like. What exactly did they agree to do?

[Carrie Johnson]

We don't know the entire terms of the agreements, but what we do know is that about nine law firms that settled agreed to do pro bono work, provide free legal services in the amount of nearly $1 billion for causes both they and the Trump administration seem to want to advance. And what President Trump has said about that is that it could involve Veterans affairs, it could involve immigration. He's even floated the idea that it could involve defending police officers who killed people in their line of duty.

[Miles Parks]

Okay, let's take a quick break, and then more on these deals, and then also the firms that are fighting back. Right. Right after this. And we're back. So, Kerry, let's get back to the law firms that have made deals with the Trump administration. Your latest reporting is that many lawyers are looking at these deals and thinking they may not actually be legal even. Can you explain that?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. You know, it's hard to Tell what's exactly in the substance of these deals, because we haven't seen much in writing about them. And that itself is unusual because lawyers.

[Miles Parks]

Put things to writing things in writing. Right. That's a big deal.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, exactly. And, you know, most lawyers in law school take a class called Contracts, and there they learn a bunch of things, one of which is that in order for there to be a valid agreement, both sides have to understand what they're agreeing to. I talked with Yale law professor Harold Koh, who's been thinking about these law firm deals, and here's what he had to say.

[Harold Koh]

For there to be a valid contract, there has to be a meeting of the minds. Both sides have to agree on what they have agreed upon. And then, secondly, there needs to be consideration, which is each side has to give up something to get something. The problem with the law firm deals, or as they're called, is that they're not deals at all. The law firms thought it meant one thing, and President Trump and his team seem to think it means another. You know, a contract that you make with a gun to your head is not a contract.

[Miles Parks]

And then there's this whole other possibility that these deals could also potentially run up against federal bribery laws. Can you explain that?

[Carrie Johnson]

There are a number of scholars who think that these deals could violate either ethics codes for lawyers and law firms, or maybe even criminal laws or civil laws. They could give rise to conflicts of interest between lawyers and law firms and their clients. They could give rise to litigation about that, and they could even violate federal criminal law. Although, Miles, right now it's hard to imagine the Trump Justice Department bringing any criminal charges along these lines. I spoke with Congresswoman April McLean Delaney. She's a longtime lawyer. Right now, she's a member of Congress, a Democrat from Maryland, and she sent letters to these settling law firms to try to ask them a bit more detail about these deals they signed and whether they've exposed themselves to more problems. Here's what the congresswoman had to say.

[April McLean Delaney]

They made these agreements to really avoid being targeted by investigations, and that these executive orders would potentially put their firms out of business. Pro bono is usually for the most disadvantaged or disenfranchised, those that cannot afford to have legal representation. Pro bono was never for the United States government or for a billionaire president.

[Carrie Johnson]

You know, and in fact, a number of young lawyers at these big firms that settled these associates and even students in law school are really concerned about basically what's happened here. And they either don't want to go work for these firms or get contracted, do this kind of pro bono work that's for the Trump administration, or they want to walk with their feet if they already got there.

[Domenico Montanaro]

It is interesting looking for pro bono work if you're Trump, because he certainly needed some in the past couple of years. I mean, he spent tens of millions of dollars raising money because of the cases that were brought against him. So it's notable to hear him saying that all of these firms either went against him or were involved with people who opposed various aspects of his agenda. He wants these law firms will then do for him. And I think it's notable that there's been such a losing streak for the Trump administration in the courts. And you have to wonder if some of these big law firms that made deals with Trump, if regretting making those deals, considering how much judges have kind of pushed back on the administration for this executive order in the first place.

[Miles Parks]

Well, let's get into that, Carrie, because a number the law firms that did not make the deals have. Can you explain, I guess, how they have fought back against the administration and the orders that they've made?

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah, absolutely. Within a relatively short period of time after Trump issued these executive orders, four of the law firms sued over them. And they're winning. They're winning in court. They're basically arguing that these executive orders amount to retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. They're arguing there's a separation of powers issue here because it's the judicial branch that's supposed to regulate and punish lawyers, not the White House. And they're also saying that this really interferes with somebody's ability to get a lawyer, which is promised under the Sixth Amendment. And so judges, no matter what political party they were appointed by, have largely been siding with these firms. Some have even gone so far as to say that the firms who settled are gonna have a bad place in American history.

[Miles Parks]

Wow. So, Domenico, stepping back a little bit, can you talk? You mentioned that, you know, Trump's targeting of institutions more broadly. How are you watching this in terms of thinking about whether this gives the Trump administration cover to go after things like colleges?

[Domenico Montanaro]

Well, I wonder about the politics of this and whether or not the Trump administration winds up going too far and how much that winds up trickling down to the Republican Party writ large? Because you have the midterms coming up in 2026. There are not a whole lot of seats out there that can be targeted. And when these things sort of pile up, the more it looks like kind of petty retribution, the less people seem to and feel like The Trump administration. Trump himself is not as focused on the things that got him elected in the first place, like prices.

[Miles Parks]

That makes a lot of sense. It's less so defending the law firms and more like, wait, why are you focused on this? What is this doing for me?

[Domenico Montanaro]

And what is this about?

[Miles Parks]

Right.

[Domenico Montanaro]

I mean, like, most people are not paying attention this closely. Most people will never get within a stone's throw of the buildings that these law firms are at. The amount of money that they cost is something that is just unfathomable for most people. Right. Trump just has this sort of niche kind of vengeance or retribution want against these folks, I think doesn't register with a lot of people.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. One thing that these firms do and have done is that in their pro bono work and the free legal services they provide, they can help very small nonprofit groups, say, in the immigration space or the environmental space, really, with a lot of resources and brainpower to try to challenge things the White House is doing that they think are illegal or discriminatory. And one of the reasons, one of the possible reasons why these executive orders came about in the first place may be to stop law firms from raising their hands and volunteering to frustrate Trump's immigration agenda and environmental agenda and deregulatory agenda.

[Domenico Montanaro]

Because these people are really smart, they know the law, and there's a reason they're paid as well as they are. And, you know, certainly if Trump can put them on the sidelines and put them on ice, it certainly helps his agenda way more.

[Miles Parks]

Wow. Okay. Well, we can leave it there for now. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting.

[Carrie Johnson]

I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Domenico Montanaro]

And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

[Miles Parks]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.