Trump’s Latest Weapon Against Critics: Destroying Their Lawyers

Free Speech

from the first-they-came-for-the-lawyers dept

When a president uses executive power to not just blacklist but effectively destroy a major law firm, solely for representing political opponents, it means he’s given up any pretense that he’s not an authoritarian hellbent on destroying anyone who opposes him through any means necessary. Donald Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie isn’t just an attack on one firm — it’s a blueprint for how authoritarian leaders can grossly abuse government power to chill speech and discourage legal challenges to a vast campaign of abuses of their authority.

There are so many things happening with the current ruling junta that it’s impossible to cover all the craziness. But some moments stand out as so far outside the normal realm of things that they need to be described plainly. Donald Trump’s executive order about the law firm Perkins Coie is one of those things. Even if you are a true believer in the MAGA movement, this is one of those things that should cause you to question how much Trump is focused on punishing his perceived enemies, rather than leading the country.

Perkins Coie represents a who’s who of major tech (and other) companies, handles crucial cybersecurity work requiring security clearances, and yes, sometimes represents Democratic politicians and causes. That last bit — a small fraction of their overall practice — is apparently enough for Trump to try to destroy them. The firm’s thousand-plus lawyers handle everything from patent litigation to privacy compliance to national security matters. But none of that matters to an administration focused solely on punishing perceived enemies.

This isn’t just about politics — it’s about whether a president can use executive power to cut off legal representation for any entity that opposes him. Today it’s a firm that represented Democrats. Tomorrow it could be lawyers representing tech companies challenging government surveillance, or defending platforms’ content moderation rights, or fighting against political pressure to unmask anonymous users.

The executive order itself reads like a political hit piece rather than a legitimate exercise of presidential power. And while executive orders have increasingly been used by presidents to push policy agendas without Congress, they’re at least supposed to maintain a veneer of legitimate government purpose. Even Trump’s previous controversial orders attempted (however poorly) to make them look like they were about national security or somehow in the public interest.

But this order barely even pretends. It mentions national security, but with no actual explanation, and it’s clearly there as a fig leaf. This order is nakedly using executive power to punish political opponents — exactly the kind of abuse that critics of executive orders have warned about in the past.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted, “Mr. President we are a nation of laws & we are supposed to follow our #Constitution. You do not get to ‘act alone.'”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “Over and over again this president has disregarded the law, has disregarded the Constitution and has asserted presidential power that simply doesn’t exist and that ought to worry regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not.”

Of course, those were about relatively mild executive orders from President Obama. Where are Senators Paul and Cruz regarding Trump’s abuse of executive orders?

The order’s text reads like a Trump campaign speech. Rather than even attempting to articulate a legitimate government purpose, it launches directly into partisan grievances:

The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election. This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification.

This is a president using the power of his office to punish lawyers for representing clients he doesn’t like. If that doesn’t terrify you, imagine how this precedent could be used against any law firm that helps fight government overreach. Imagine what it means for firms considering whether to help challenge unconstitutional surveillance programs, or defend whistleblowers, or protect platforms’ rights to moderate content as they see fit.

The order doesn’t just attack Perkins Coie for representing Democrats — it explicitly attacks them for challenging laws in court. Think about that: the White House is using executive power to punish lawyers for filing legitimate court challenges to potentially unconstitutional laws. That’s not just an attack on free speech — it’s an attack on the very concept of constitutional checks and balances.

The order’s punitive measures are carefully crafted to effectively destroy the firm’s ability to operate. First, it effectively strips security clearances from everyone at Perkins Coie — a move that doesn’t just impact their political work, but devastates their ability to handle cybersecurity matters, represent defense contractors, or work on sensitive tech policy issues. This isn’t collateral damage — it’s a deliberate attempt to cut off the firm’s ability to represent clients in some of their core practice areas.

Even more dangerous is the contractor ban. Any company with a federal contract — which includes most major tech companies and countless smaller ones — must now “disclose any business they do with Perkins Coie.” This creates an impossible choice for these companies: either cut ties with a trusted legal advisor or risk their government contracts. It’s a move straight out of an authoritarian playbook — using government contracts as leverage to force private companies to blacklist political enemies.

But perhaps the most chilling aspect of the order is its attempt to bar Perkins Coie personnel from “federal government buildings.” The language is deliberately broad and vague:

The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Perkins Coie when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.

Let’s be crystal clear about what this means: federal government buildings include courthouses. This order could be used to physically prevent Perkins Coie lawyers from entering federal courts to represent their clients. It’s a direct assault on the fundamental right to legal representation and due process.

Think about the precedent this sets. A president who doesn’t like how a law firm is defending anyone against government overreach could simply bar that firm from federal buildings. Don’t like how lawyers are challenging surveillance programs? Ban them from the courthouse. Fighting too hard against government attempts to weaken encryption? Sorry, you’re now a “national security threat.”

This order shows exactly how far he’s willing to go to silence legal opposition to his agenda.

The order’s chilling effects were immediate and exactly as intended. Just days after Trump declared he had “brought free speech back to the White House,” major law firms are already self-censoring out of fear:

In private conversations, partners at some of the nation’s leading firms have expressed outrage at the president’s actions. What they haven’t been willing to do is say so publicly. Back-channel efforts to persuade major law firms to sign public statements criticizing Trump’s actions thus far have foundered, in part because of retaliation fears, people familiar with the matter said.

Advocacy groups and smaller law firms say it has been more difficult to recruit larger firms to help with cases against Trump, which now number more than 100. 

This isn’t just about silencing criticism. It’s about cutting off access to legal representation for anyone challenging government power. And Trump made it explicit over the weekend — this is just the beginning:

Anyone wondering whether law firms might face similar threats or actions didn’t have long to find out. In an interview on Sunday morning, Trump suggested to Maria Bartiromo of Fox News that he isn’t done yet. “We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people,” he said. “It was so bad for our country.”

That Williams & Connolly has stepped up to represent Perkins Coie is both admirable and telling. As the NY Times reports, many feared no major firm would risk Trump’s wrath:

There were concerns in the legal community that no firm would step forward to represent Perkins Coie. But now Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will be forced to face off against some of the top litigators in the country to defend what legal experts consider one of his most direct attacks on his perceived enemies, and the American legal system.

This is the reality of Trump’s America: law firms must now weigh whether defending basic constitutional rights is worth risking their own destruction. And while it’s easy to get numb to the daily assaults on democratic norms, this attack on the legal profession represents something fundamentally different and more dangerous.

This isn’t just about Perkins Coie or partisan politics. It’s about whether anyone will be able to find lawyers willing to challenge government overreach. It’s about whether tech companies can defend their rights to moderate content or protect user privacy. It’s about whether anyone will dare to represent whistleblowers or privacy advocates or civil rights organizations when the government comes calling.

Even those who supported Trump’s previous attacks on those he hates should recognize this for what it is: a blueprint for using government power to silence any effective opposition to authoritarianism. Today it’s lawyers who represented Democrats. Tomorrow it could be anyone who dares to stand up for individual rights against government power.

Filed Under: chilling effects, donald trump, free speech, lawyers, right to representation, security clearance
Companies: perkins coie