Leopards Eating MAGA Faces (The Trump Policies Being Implemented Thread)

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308
Feigned ignorance…


Posted on Sat May 31 17:38:14 2025 UTC

mwucnxful54f1.jpeg


 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308
Guess who’s regretting their votes now…



Posted on Fri May 30 18:54:02 2025 UTC


New Cubans doomed to communism by Cuban-American MAGA voters. Venezuelans too.



Posted on Fri May 30 15:04:23 2025 UTC

1b0xz5hhpx3f1.jpeg


 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308

Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks​


The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed.

30dc-judges1-gflw-articleLarge.jpg


Justice Neil Gorsuch with former Justice Stephen Breyer at a memorial event for Antonin Scalia last year during a Federalist Society convention in Washington.Credit...Tierney L. Cross for The New York Times

By Charlie Savage

Charlie Savage writes about presidential power and legal policy. He reported from Washington.

May 30, 2025

President Trump appears to be declaring independence from outside constraints on how he nominates judges, signaling that he is looking for loyalists who will uphold his agenda and denouncing the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term.

Late Thursday, after a ruling struck down his tariffs on most imported goods, Mr. Trump attacked the Federalist Society, leaders of which heavily influenced his selection of judges during his first presidency.

“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” Mr. Trump asserted on social media. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”

Hours earlier Thursday, the Justice Department severely undercut the traditional role of the American Bar Association in vetting judicial nominees. A day before, Mr. Trump picked a loyalist who has no deep ties to the conservative legal movement for a life-tenured appeals court seat, explaining that his pick could be counted on to rule in ways aligned with his agenda.

Together, the moves suggest that Mr. Trump may be pivoting toward greater personal involvement and a more idiosyncratic process for selecting future nominees. Such a shift would fit with his second-term pattern of steamrolling the guardrails that sometimes constrained how he exercised power during his first presidency.

But it could also give pause to judges who may be weighing taking senior status, giving Mr. Trump an opportunity to fill their seats. Conservatives have been eyeing in particular the seats of the Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, who will turn 77 next month, and Samuel A. Alito, 75.

30dc-judges2-fvkt-articleLarge.jpg


Conservatives are eyeing the seats of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both in their 70s. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
“Conservative judges are going to be much more open to stepping down if they’re confident that their replacements will be high quality,” said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal commentator and former lawyer for the Bush administration. “Trump’s bizarre attack on his judicial appointments in his first term doesn’t inspire confidence.”

Mr. Trump and his allies have expressed increasing anger at the federal judiciary as courts have blocked his actions, including his aggressive claim to wartime powers to deport migrants without due process and his efforts to freeze grants and dismantle agencies without going through Congress.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of International Trade handed Mr. Trump his latest defeat. A three-judge panel unanimously struck down his invocation of emergency powers to impose import taxes on goods imported from nearly every country in the world. Two of the three judges were Republican appointees, one named to the bench by Mr. Trump. (A higher court has temporarily paused the ruling.)

Notably, the Trump appointee on the trade court was not a Federalist Society archetype. Congress structured the court to require a partisan balance, so presidents make sets of nominees from both parties. The judge had worked for a Democratic lawmaker before becoming an aide to one of Mr. Trump’s first-term trade officials.

Yet Mr. Trump lashed out at the Federalist Society, blaming it for bad advice on whom to appoint to judgeships. He singled out Leonard Leo, a former longtime leader of the Federalist Society who helped recommend his first-term nominees and who exemplifies the conservative legal movement.

“I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use the Federalist Society as a recommending source on judges,” the president wrote. “I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.”

30dc-judges3-ztqm-articleLarge.jpg

Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society at the Capitol in 2018. Credit...Erin Schaff for The New York Times

Mr. Leo and Mr. Trump had a falling out in 2020, but the personal attack was a sharp escalation. In a statement, Mr. Leo said, “I’m very grateful for President Trump transforming the federal courts, and it was a privilege being involved.”

Still, Mr. Trump’s tirade strained an already uneasy relationship with traditional legal conservatives.

Many share the president’s goals of strengthening border security, curbing the administrative state and ending “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, said John Yoo, a conservative law professor. But, he added, they dislike some of Mr. Trump’s methods, whether that is prolifically invoking emergency powers or insulting judges who rule against his administration.

Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.

See how to send a secure message at nytimes.com/tips

And Professor Yoo, who wrote memos advancing sweeping theories of presidential power as a Bush administration lawyer, said Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mr. Leo were “outrageous.”

“Calling for the impeachment of judges, attacking Leonard Leo personally and basically calling him as traitor as far as I can tell — Trump is basically turning his back on one of his biggest achievements of his first term,” he added, referring to the reshaping of the federal judiciary.

Earlier on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi notified the American Bar Association that the administration would impede its traditional role in vetting judicial nominees. That work involves interviewing their colleagues, reviewing their cases and writings, and rating them for integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.

The bar group says it does not consider politics in such vetting, but conservatives have long accused it of liberal bias. (It rated all three of Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominees as well qualified, and deemed only three of his 54 appeals court nominees to be not qualified for the positions.)
es about national security and legal policy for The Times.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308
30dc-judges4-lzkv-articleLarge.jpg

Attorney General Pam Bondi at the White House last month. Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

In 2017, the first Trump administration stopped the bar group from assessing potential nominees before any final decision. But it permitted the group to vet them after their names went to the Senate. Nominees signed waivers so the group could have access to nonpublic bar information, filled out A.B.A. questionnaires and sat for interviews.

In a significant escalation, Ms. Bondi said in her letter that Mr. Trump’s second-term nominees would not be instructed to sign waivers, nor would they fill out questionnaires or sit for interviews. The A.B.A. declined to comment on the move.

While Mr. Trump was out of power, a schism emerged between traditional legal conservatives and MAGA-style lawyers. The latter decided that politically appointed executive branch lawyers had constrained Mr. Trump in his first term, and began making plans to appoint a more aggressive breed of lawyer. But that conversation was largely about selecting executive branch lawyers, not judges.

During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump had essentially made a deal with the conservative legal movement. In exchange for its support, he would outsource his judicial selections, like the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, to movement adherents.

Throughout his first term, Mr. Trump nominated appellate judges and Supreme Court justices cut from the mold of the conservative legal movement. He accepted the recommendations of his first White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, a Federalist Society stalwart, with significant input from Mr. Leo.

This month, Mr. Trump announced the first appellate nomination of his second term, Whitney Hermandorfer, a lawyer in the Tennessee attorney general’s office, for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A former Supreme Court clerk to Justices Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, she appeared cut from the same cloth as his first-term selections.

According to people briefed on the selection process, Trump officials including Stephen Kenny, a lawyer working for the White House counsel; Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s deputy chief of staff; and Sergio Gor, the director of the White House personnel office, were involved in those deliberations. Mr. McGahn, now in private practice, is also said to have weighed in on Ms. Hermandorfer.

But Mr. Trump’s second appellate pick, announced on Wednesday as the nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was different: Emil Bove III, a Justice Department official and former criminal defense lawyer for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Bove does not fit the mold of the sort of lawyer who has spent years frequenting Federalist Society conventions to discuss judicial restraint and originalism. But he has shown a willingness to aggressively use power in ways that Mr. Trump likes, including carrying out politically charged purges.

Mr. Bove also forced out an interim U.S. attorney after she balked at his demand to drop a corruption case against New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, when the administration wanted his help for mass deportations. The prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, a Federalist Society member who had clerked for Justice Scalia, portrayed the request as unethical.

In naming Mr. Bove, the president put forward an openly politicized and outcome-based rationale. His nominee, he said on social media, would “do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Emil Bove will never let you down!”

The choice has set off a debate among conservative legal circles.

Mr. Whelan said a “very conservative appellate judge” had told him that he would not retire because of concerns over whom Mr. Trump would pick as a successor. In National Review, he warned of the “danger that Bove, if confirmed, would leap to the top of Trump’s list for the next Supreme Court vacancy.”

But Mike Davis, a former Republican nominations counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted and welcomed similar picks ahead. “President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term,” he wrote on social media. “And Emil Bove is one of the most bold and fearless of them all.”

Michael A. Fragoso, a former nominations counsel to Senator Mitch McConnell, defended Mr. Bove’s credentials. But he also said that “regardless of what Mr. Trump is saying, the pool of candidates that he is picking from, and should be picking from, is still Federalist Society people.”

Professor Yoo said the purpose of the conservative legal movement was to get presidents to stop treating judicial appointments as patronage and instead advance ideological goals. If Mr. Trump deviated from that path, he cautioned, the president risked the revolt President George W. Bush faced when he tried to appoint his friend and the White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court two decades ago. Mr. Bush ultimately backed down.

No matter the shared goals of the conservative legal movement, Professor Yoo added, its members had a limit.

He said they would not support “him calling for the impeachment of judges or wanting to appoint judges who are not the best and the brightest, but instead are people getting personal rewards from the president — which is how it was before the Federalist Society.”
Charlie Savage writ
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308
Republican voters questioning Snap and Medicaid cuts at a town hall met with "we're all going to die for heavens sake"


Posted on Sat May 31 03:15:55 2025 UTC






By —
Hannah Fingerhut, Associated Press





Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

WATCH: ‘We are all going to die,’ Sen. Ernst says after addressing Medicaid changes in combative town hall​

Nation May 30, 2025 8:13 PM EDT

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican Sen. Joni Ernst was met with shouts and groans when she said “we all are going to die” as she addressed potential changes to Medicaid eligibility at a town hall in north-central Iowa on Friday.

She had been consistent in her message throughout the contentious forum at a high school in Parkersburg, Iowa, as she defended the tax and immigration package that has passed the House and is now under consideration in the Senate. Facing several constituents concerned about cuts to Medicaid, she defended the $700 billion in reduced spending, saying it would keep immigrants in the U.S. illegally and those who have access to insurance through their employers off the rolls.

WATCH: Brooks and Capehart on Elon Musk’s impact on the U.S. government and agencies

Then someone in the crowd yelled that people will die without coverage.

“People are not … well, we all are going to die,” Ernst said, drawing groans. “So, for heaven’s sakes. For heaven’s sakes, folks.”

“What you don’t want to do is listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable,” Ernst went on. “Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid we will protect.”

House Republicans last week muscled through the massive spending and tax cut package, dubbed “the big, beautiful bill” at the urging of President Donald Trump, by a single vote. It now moves to the Senate.

WATCH: Members of Congress face frustrations over the Trump agenda from voters at home

Ernst made clear Friday that any measure that emerges from the Senate will look different from the House version.

Republicans have defended the new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents and stepped up eligibility verification, saying the generated savings will sustain the program for vulnerable populations. Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with health care by 8.6 million over the decade.

Video of Ernst’s comment started making the rounds among Democrat elected officials and candidates. Ernst is up for reelection in 2026.

“This morning, Joni Ernst said the quiet part out loud:” Republicans do not care “about whether their own constituents live or die as long as the richest few get richer,” said Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
 

Trips

Superstar
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
14,241
Reputation
1,758
Daps
39,891
Republican voters questioning Snap and Medicaid cuts at a town hall met with "we're all going to die for heavens sake"


Posted on Sat May 31 03:15:55 2025 UTC






By —
Hannah Fingerhut, Associated Press





Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

WATCH: ‘We are all going to die,’ Sen. Ernst says after addressing Medicaid changes in combative town hall​

Nation May 30, 2025 8:13 PM EDT

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican Sen. Joni Ernst was met with shouts and groans when she said “we all are going to die” as she addressed potential changes to Medicaid eligibility at a town hall in north-central Iowa on Friday.

She had been consistent in her message throughout the contentious forum at a high school in Parkersburg, Iowa, as she defended the tax and immigration package that has passed the House and is now under consideration in the Senate. Facing several constituents concerned about cuts to Medicaid, she defended the $700 billion in reduced spending, saying it would keep immigrants in the U.S. illegally and those who have access to insurance through their employers off the rolls.

WATCH: Brooks and Capehart on Elon Musk’s impact on the U.S. government and agencies

Then someone in the crowd yelled that people will die without coverage.

“People are not … well, we all are going to die,” Ernst said, drawing groans. “So, for heaven’s sakes. For heaven’s sakes, folks.”

“What you don’t want to do is listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable,” Ernst went on. “Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid we will protect.”

House Republicans last week muscled through the massive spending and tax cut package, dubbed “the big, beautiful bill” at the urging of President Donald Trump, by a single vote. It now moves to the Senate.

WATCH: Members of Congress face frustrations over the Trump agenda from voters at home

Ernst made clear Friday that any measure that emerges from the Senate will look different from the House version.

Republicans have defended the new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents and stepped up eligibility verification, saying the generated savings will sustain the program for vulnerable populations. Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with health care by 8.6 million over the decade.

Video of Ernst’s comment started making the rounds among Democrat elected officials and candidates. Ernst is up for reelection in 2026.

“This morning, Joni Ernst said the quiet part out loud:” Republicans do not care “about whether their own constituents live or die as long as the richest few get richer,” said Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.

she laughed while saying it. Cause she knows those clowns will vote her back in 10 times out of 10.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308

MAGA outlet’s Pentagon correspondent criticized Hegseth. And then she was fired, she says​


By Brian Stelter, CNN

3 minute read

Published 10:38 AM EDT, Sat May 31, 2025

Former OAN Pentagon correspondent Gabrielle Cuccia.


Former OAN Pentagon correspondent Gabrielle Cuccia.

From Gabrielle Cuccia/Instagram

CNN —

Gabrielle Cuccia criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s crackdown on press access at the Pentagon. And then, she said, she was fired.

Cuccia was briefly the chief Pentagon correspondent for the small and staunchly pro-Trump TV channel One America News, OAN for short.

A self-proclaimed “MAGA girl,” Cuccia positioned herself as a proudly conservative voice among the normally nonpartisan Pentagon press corps. But she grew perturbed by Hegseth’s actions against the press.

In a post on her personal Substack account on Tuesday, she wrote that the Defense Department’s recent move to make vast parts of the Pentagon off-limits to journalists was a “troubling shift.” She heaped doubt on the Defense Department’s rationale for the restrictions. And she questioned why Hegseth hasn’t held any formal press briefings since being sworn in.

“This article isn’t to serve as a tearing down” of Hegseth, she wrote. “This is me wanting to keep MAGA alive.”

Evidently, someone disagreed. On Thursday, “I was asked to turn in my Pentagon badge to my bureau chief,” Cuccia said in response to CNN’s inquiry about her status there. On Friday, she said, she was fired.

Cuccia declined to answer followup questions. OAN president Charles Herring did not respond to CNN’s request for comment, including about whether any Pentagon officials complained to OAN about Cuccia’s Substack post.

Cuccia served in the Trump White House in 2017 and 2018 and later reported from the White House for OAN, then spent several years as a contractor, according to her LinkedIn page. One of her right-wing TV appearances went viral last year when she repeated Trump’s claims of 2020 election fraud on Newsmax. The anchor cut her off, most likely due to allegations being made during the segment.

Whether through fiery TV segments or Instagram posts posing with firearms, Cuccia was public about her MAGA bonafides. So she was a natural fit to return to OAN earlier this year.

In February, the Defense Department took away NBC’s longtime workspace at the Pentagon and gave the office to OAN — part of a broader push by the Pentagon to seek out pro-Trump coverage and sideline traditional news outlets.

OAN suddenly needed to staff the Pentagon, so Cuccia was brought aboard as chief Pentagon correspondent. She personally renovated the office space into what she called a “Liberty Lounge” and chronicled the process on social media.

According to her Substack post, she soon grew skeptical of the Defense Department’s dealings with the press corps.

Echoing the concerns of the Pentagon Press Association — which Cuccia said she is not officially a part of, since “again hello I am MAGA” — she pointed out that the Pentagon’s top spokesman has only held one briefing since January.

“This Administration, to my surprise, also locked the doors to the Pentagon Briefing room, a protocol that was never in place in prior Administrations, and a door that is never locked for press at the White House,” she wrote.

“The Commander-in-Chief welcomes the hard questions… and yes, even the dumb ones. Why won’t the Secretary of Defense do the same?”

Her nuanced assessment of the Pentagon’s press crackdown totaled 3,000 words. It aligned with the slogan that she printed on tank tops and sold on Etsy last year: “Love your country, not your government.”

The primary trigger for her post seemed to be the Defense Department’s May 23 memo restricting journalists from key parts of the Pentagon without an official escort.

“For decades — across both Republican and Democratic administrations — reporters have operated in these spaces responsibly, including in the wake of 9/11, without raising red flags from leadership over operational security,” she wrote.

The memo indicated that further restrictions are likely in the coming weeks, including a pledge to protect military secrets and tougher scrutiny of press credentialing.

“Without press, we by default have to assume that our government relaying information to us, is true,” Cuccia wrote, calling that attitude “the antithesis of what we believe in.”

On Friday she changed her X bio to “former chief Pentagon correspondent.”
 

Trips

Superstar
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
14,241
Reputation
1,758
Daps
39,891

MAGA outlet’s Pentagon correspondent criticized Hegseth. And then she was fired, she says​


By Brian Stelter, CNN

3 minute read

Published 10:38 AM EDT, Sat May 31, 2025

Former OAN Pentagon correspondent Gabrielle Cuccia.


Former OAN Pentagon correspondent Gabrielle Cuccia.

From Gabrielle Cuccia/Instagram

CNN —

Gabrielle Cuccia criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s crackdown on press access at the Pentagon. And then, she said, she was fired.

Cuccia was briefly the chief Pentagon correspondent for the small and staunchly pro-Trump TV channel One America News, OAN for short.

A self-proclaimed “MAGA girl,” Cuccia positioned herself as a proudly conservative voice among the normally nonpartisan Pentagon press corps. But she grew perturbed by Hegseth’s actions against the press.

In a post on her personal Substack account on Tuesday, she wrote that the Defense Department’s recent move to make vast parts of the Pentagon off-limits to journalists was a “troubling shift.” She heaped doubt on the Defense Department’s rationale for the restrictions. And she questioned why Hegseth hasn’t held any formal press briefings since being sworn in.

“This article isn’t to serve as a tearing down” of Hegseth, she wrote. “This is me wanting to keep MAGA alive.”

Evidently, someone disagreed. On Thursday, “I was asked to turn in my Pentagon badge to my bureau chief,” Cuccia said in response to CNN’s inquiry about her status there. On Friday, she said, she was fired.

Cuccia declined to answer followup questions. OAN president Charles Herring did not respond to CNN’s request for comment, including about whether any Pentagon officials complained to OAN about Cuccia’s Substack post.

Cuccia served in the Trump White House in 2017 and 2018 and later reported from the White House for OAN, then spent several years as a contractor, according to her LinkedIn page. One of her right-wing TV appearances went viral last year when she repeated Trump’s claims of 2020 election fraud on Newsmax. The anchor cut her off, most likely due to allegations being made during the segment.

Whether through fiery TV segments or Instagram posts posing with firearms, Cuccia was public about her MAGA bonafides. So she was a natural fit to return to OAN earlier this year.

In February, the Defense Department took away NBC’s longtime workspace at the Pentagon and gave the office to OAN — part of a broader push by the Pentagon to seek out pro-Trump coverage and sideline traditional news outlets.

OAN suddenly needed to staff the Pentagon, so Cuccia was brought aboard as chief Pentagon correspondent. She personally renovated the office space into what she called a “Liberty Lounge” and chronicled the process on social media.

According to her Substack post, she soon grew skeptical of the Defense Department’s dealings with the press corps.

Echoing the concerns of the Pentagon Press Association — which Cuccia said she is not officially a part of, since “again hello I am MAGA” — she pointed out that the Pentagon’s top spokesman has only held one briefing since January.

“This Administration, to my surprise, also locked the doors to the Pentagon Briefing room, a protocol that was never in place in prior Administrations, and a door that is never locked for press at the White House,” she wrote.

“The Commander-in-Chief welcomes the hard questions… and yes, even the dumb ones. Why won’t the Secretary of Defense do the same?”

Her nuanced assessment of the Pentagon’s press crackdown totaled 3,000 words. It aligned with the slogan that she printed on tank tops and sold on Etsy last year: “Love your country, not your government.”

The primary trigger for her post seemed to be the Defense Department’s May 23 memo restricting journalists from key parts of the Pentagon without an official escort.

“For decades — across both Republican and Democratic administrations — reporters have operated in these spaces responsibly, including in the wake of 9/11, without raising red flags from leadership over operational security,” she wrote.

The memo indicated that further restrictions are likely in the coming weeks, including a pledge to protect military secrets and tougher scrutiny of press credentialing.

“Without press, we by default have to assume that our government relaying information to us, is true,” Cuccia wrote, calling that attitude “the antithesis of what we believe in.”

On Friday she changed her X bio to “former chief Pentagon correspondent.”
She sure she's not going to get deported. She looks a little brown to be talking so wild about this Admin.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
66,130
Reputation
10,216
Daps
179,308

Major Companies Abandon Law Firms That Signed Deals with Trump: Report​


Published Jun 02, 2025 at 8:11 AM EDT

By Sophie Clark

Live News Reporter

Major companies in the U.S. have begun shifting legal work away from prominent law firms that struck deals with the Trump administration, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ reported on a legal luncheon at Manhattan's Cipriani restaurant in May, where Brooke Cucinella, a top lawyer at the hedge-fund Citadel, told other lawyers present that they like working with lawyers who don't run from a fight.

Not only are firms that struck deals losing clients, but those actively challenging the Trump administration in court are attracting new corporate business, per the WSJ.

Newsweek has contacted two firms in legal fights with the Trump administration via email for comment.

Paul Weiss protests


Demonstrators outside the law offices of Paul Weiss in New York protesting the firm's agreement to do free legal services for the Trump administration, Tuesday, April 22, 2025.Ted Shaffrey/AP Photo

Why It Matters​


Firms' decisions to either challenge or cooperate with the Trump administration's executive orders are now influencing high-stakes client choices with financial and reputational repercussions.

The situation also raises broader questions about the independence of the legal profession and the potential long-term impact of political pressure on corporate legal partnerships.

What To Know​


Beginning in late February 2025, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders directing federal agencies to strip certain law firms of government security clearances and to remove those firms' clients from lucrative federal contracts.

The administration alleged these firms represented political opponents or had adopted practices it considered harmful. Four prominent firms—Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—chose to challenge the orders in court.

Several other law firms targeted by these orders opted to cut deals to avoid disruption. These deals involved promising to do pro-bono work, some of this work will be defending police officers accused of wrongdoing.

Legal executives from at least 11 major companies are redirecting assignments away from firms that made pacts with the White House, the WSJ reported. Oracle, Morgan Stanley, an unnamed airline, a pharmaceutical company, and McDonald's have all moved or considered moving legal work, in some cases explicitly citing dissatisfaction with the firms' response to White House pressure. Microsoft raised conflict-of-interest concerns with Latham & Watkins, temporarily removing the firm from its preferred counsel list before reinstating it after further discussions.

Law firms which chose to sign deals with the administration are not only facing financial stress due to a reported drop in clients, but are also facing internal protest and resignations.

Partners and associates at firms including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, Simpson Thacher, and others, expressed anger and frustration over what they perceived as a retreat from defending the firm's independence.

Four senior partners at Paul Weiss, one major firm which reached a settlement with the Trump administration, have quit to form their own firm.

The law firms that challenged the administration's orders—Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—noted an influx of business from large companies seeking to reward their stance, according to interviews the WSJ carried out with general counsels at multiple corporations.

Judges have blocked or struck down Trump's orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, calling them unconstitutional acts of retaliation

Jenner & Block was targeted "because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed," ruled U.S. District Judge John Bates.

Bates, appointed by former President George W. Bush wrote, "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," adding that the administration sought to "chill legal representation" it didn't like.

Bar Association protests

Attendees gather in a rally organized by the Bar Association of San Francisco in support of attorneys and law firms targeted by President Donald Trump, San Francisco, Thursday, May 1, 2025. Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

What People Are Saying​


Jon Palmer, General Counsel of Microsoft, told the WSJ: "The Latham agreement created concerns about potential conflict of interest issues that could have affected the firm's ability to represent Microsoft...[Latham's leaders] provided the strong assurances we needed to address our concerns."

Jenner & Block, said in a statement in March: "[Making a deal with the White House would mean] compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA."

What Happens Next​


Judicial challenges to Trump's executive orders are ongoing, with courts so far siding with law firms that mounted legal opposition.

Corporate clients, meanwhile, are expected to continue evaluating their legal relationships based on firms' responses to government pressure, with many indicating a sustained preference for firms seen as maintaining independence.
 
Top