“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
— Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
On April 28, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that revoked the federal security clearances of several AmLaw firms. Among them were WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling,and Jenner & Block—each of which has since filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of the EO. Meanwhile, Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss quickly chose to settle.
All six firms either employed or represented clients involved in Trump-related investigations, impeachments, or litigation perceived to be politically adverse.
The EO immediately barred these firms from engaging in national security litigation or handling government contracts. The financial cost? Likely hundreds of millions in lost revenue, plus the potential loss of long-term federal and defense clients.
Threats to National Security—or a Battle in Family Court?
The administration’s official justification is rooted in national security and legal ethics. As stated in the order:
“Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”
The language is strong. But critics question the timing and selectivity. They ask why, if these firms were truly national security risks, were they permitted to operate freely during Trump’s previous term and throughout his own legal trials? And if they posed such a threat, why were the security clearances of Skadden and Willkie reinstated immediately after reportedly providing over $100 million in free legal fees and funding law school fellowships aligned with MAGA priorities?
Some family lawyers have drawn a parallel – it’s like a custody battle where one parent is labeled a neglectful and abusive parent – until a large settlement is paid. Then suddenly, the parent in question is deemed a perfectly acceptable co-parent.
Firms that openly supported Trump or provided legal services for free—such as Kasowitz Benson Torres—have gained expanded access and opportunity under the new directive. Legal insiders have called this a “loyalty filter”—a system that rewards political obedience and punishes dissenting representation.
Refusing to Bend the Knee
Some firms, however, are choosing to fight.
Jenner & Block, known for representing whistleblowers and engaging in high-profile accountability work, is leading the constitutional challenge, citing violations of the First and Sixth Amendments, as well as due process rights.
Perkins Coie is also contesting the EO. Managing Partner Bill Malley issued a public statement on the firm’s website: “The order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government.”
The White House & Trump Supporters See This as Leveling the Playing Field
The White House defended the order as both legal and necessary. A spokesperson stated:
“President Donald Trump says executive orders targeting law firms are being issued in the name of national security, with the White House asserting that the firms don’t deserve access to sensitive U.S. government information.”
Supporters of the move say this is well within executive authority. Tim Rosenberger, CES Casewriting Fellow at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, offered this perspective:
“Such EOs are well within the president’s power and pose no ethical problem. Some scholars are saying that the EOs will make it hard for politically disfavored parties to get legal representation. That seems unlikely. Or at least, politically disfavored persons, causes, etc. on the right have long struggled to find representation, so this seems to just be a partisan leveling.”
Domestic Dissent
Others within the legal and business communities see the order differently.
Edward Hones, a labor & employment attorney in Seattle, shared his concern: “Using executive power to punish law firms for whom they represent or how they hire fundamentally undermines both attorney independence and the fairness of our judicial system. We could see a splintering where certain firms are viewed as ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ based on political alignment. That would be catastrophic not just for legal ethics, but for public trust in the legal system as a whole.”
Global Reaction: The World Is Watching
Concerns extend well beyond U.S. borders. Michael Schmied, Senior Financial Analyst at Krediteschweiz.ch in Switzerland, warned:
“In cross-border banking, perception of rule-of-law stability is a keystone. Moves like this—especially when aimed at firms involved in impeachment or prosecution—are interpreted as destabilizing. If unchecked, we’ll see a new breed of ‘loyalist lawyering,’ which undermines both investor confidence and judicial fairness.”
From Canada, Tala Chehab, Managing Partner of Affinity Lawyers, issued this statement:
“If the reports regarding President Trump using Executive Orders to revoke law firm security clearances are accurate, the ethical implications are deeply concerning. Targeting law firms for political affiliations or past litigation involvement risks undermining the independence of the legal profession, a cornerstone of democratic society. The broader ramifications include a potential erosion of public trust in the justice system and the politicization of legal practice.”
It Could Happen to You
So what happens next? That’s where predictive analysis comes in.
If this Executive Order holds, and firms are cut off from work requiring security clearances, what’s to stop an administration from weaponizing other regulatory arenas?
Could a white collar defense or internal investigations practice be targeted via new DOJ scrutiny or IRS audits? Could the heads of the FDA, SEC, or other federal agencies quietly be encouraged to take a look at Firm X for irregularities?
The chilling effect on client confidence would be immediate and catastrophic. And even if the actions are legal, the perception of politicized enforcement is often enough to destroy a practice.
Ultimately, when the government can decide who gets legal representation – or which firms get punished for the clients they serve, the phrase “and justice for all” becomes questionable.
