Big Law Is Finally Getting its Act Together and Fighting Trump's Attacks
To defend our rights, the legal profession has to vigorously defend its own
Dear Readers:
For a while now, we have used Substack’s recommendation feature to share with you publications and newsletters that we believe do valuable work. But of course there are sites outside of the Substack ecosystem that we think are also worth shouting out.
So, today, we wanted to tell you about World Politics Review, an informative venue that publishes in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs to help its readers identify and make sense of the events and trends around the world. WPR doesn’t just cover the news, its experts analyze its implications, and help readers understand how individual developments fit into larger global trends. WPR covers key countries and regions that mainstream outlets often ignore. That global focus is one we deeply care about as well.
Please give World Politics Review a look—and consider subscribing. We’ve found it a reliable and insightful publication.
Berny Belvedere
Senior Editor
Big Law has finally entered the fight against Donald Trump.
It’s about time.
Since retaking office, Trump has waged a comprehensive campaign to erode the independence of the American legal profession by bending it to his will. So far, he’s been partially successful: Nine major law firms have cravenly caved to Trump’s attack, surrendering without firing a shot, while four braver law firms have fought and won. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of firms have crouched in the corner, hoping that Trump will turn his attention elsewhere.
That hope is groundless. If there is one strand that runs through Trump’s second stint in office, it’s his administration’s thoroughgoing commitment to weakening any and all resistance to his hold on power. And since the legal profession is one of the few institutions capable of halting Trump’s presidential abuses—his use of the office for political retaliation, power consolidation, and personal enrichment—it has become a prime target of this White House. Trump has gone after every aspect of the legal system—individual lawyers, law firms, and even judges—and endured tragically little pushback over any of it.
That’s why the lawsuit against the administration, filed last month by the American Bar Association, the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals, is such an important—and welcome—volley in this growing war between the president of the United States and the American legal profession. Specifically, the suit seeks preemptive relief prohibiting Trump from taking any further action against law firms around the country. In an 85-page complaint, the ABA outlines in painful detail the intimidation tactics that the White House has used to break the independence of the legal profession. The ABA asks the court to issue an order protecting lawyers throughout the U.S. by prohibiting Trump from using those tactics in the future.
Trump’s Intimidation Tactics
Trump has systematically targeted law firms that have engaged in representation and conduct that for a variety of reasons—none of them valid—has displeased his administration. The firms, in his sights, have, as per the lawsuit:
represented immigrant clients challenging Trump’s immigration policy;
sought to vindicate the 2020 election results and reject his “stop the steal” campaign;
represented women and LGBTQ individuals targeted by Trump’s anti-transgender policies;
hired or rehired attorneys from the government who worked on the investigations of Trump while he was out of office;
made donations to candidates Trump dislikes;
and advocated for diversity in the legal profession.
As the ABA’s list shows, any lawyer opposing a Trump policy is a potential target for retaliation.
The principal tactic adopted by Trump is the issuance of a series of executive orders targeting several law firms with punitive actions, which include: terminating the security clearances of lawyers at the firm; prohibiting government contractors from doing business with the law firm; denying law firm employees access to any federal building; and prohibiting federal agencies from hiring any employees of the law firm to federal jobs. In addition, Trump has also directed the attorney general to review the actions of targeted attorneys and file ethics charges and sanction requests where appropriate.
As a result of these tactics, the law firms have come under significant economic pressure that challenges their ability to stay in business. They face the prospect of losing clients who would prefer to take their business elsewhere rather than meet Trump’s wrath.
In light of the Trump administration’s punitive actions, several firms have surrendered—promising to reform their diversity policies and do pro bono work for Trump-friendly clients. Others have resisted, losing market share, but retaining their integrity. Trump’s assault gives all firms a Hobson’s choice: resist or comply.
The Legal Profession Needed to Fight Back
Through its suit, the ABA has attempted to legally bar Trump from punitively targeting law practitioners and law firms in the future. The ABA has chosen the law firm of Susman Godfrey to represent it, which is fitting, since that’s one of the few practices that has fought—and won—against Trump’s directives. This, in the end, is the only model of legal resistance capable of pushing back against the president’s authoritarian predations: take the fight directly to him, and use any victory as a springboard to launch further challenges to his illicit actions.
The suit is also appropriately aimed at the entire Trumpian apparatus. The complaint goes on for eight full pages listing as a defendant every Cabinet department, including every Cabinet secretary, as well as every independent federal commission and each of the individual commissioners, beginning with the Executive Office of the President and the U.S. Department of Justice and ending with the U.S. Post Office and the acting Postmaster General. In prior litigation, as part of its dilatory tactics, the Trump administration had said that orders entered by a court applied only to the named defendants in that action and not to other departments of the executive branch. For example, an order relating to limits on immigration activities entered in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security was, in Trump’s mind, not binding on the Department of Defense, which he empowered to act as if the order had never been entered. To forestall that sort of shillyshallying the complaint names every officer under the sun.
But the most interesting aspect of the suit is that it was filed at all. Trump is currently 0-4 in his legal efforts—all four law firms that challenged his orders in court have won permanent injunctions against their enforcement—and, reflecting the weakness of his legal position, he has not been in a rush to appeal (though the first such appeal was filed late last month). He fears that not even this Supreme Court, an otherwise favorable venue for him, will approve his extortionate threats. So if Trump is losing everywhere, why is there a need to litigate further?
I see two important justifications. The first is that the threat of further action by Trump is, all by itself, a strong deterrent. In other words, even though he has lost—and would likely lose again and again—in the courts, the mere prospect of further action is having a chilling effect on law firms. Already, evidence is mounting that even firms that haven’t yet been targeted by the administration are eliminating from their pro bono portfolios work that might be deemed inconsistent with the president’s political agenda, or that might involve taking on the administration, or might otherwise displease the president.
There are even reports that law firms are scrubbing their websites of anything that Trump might find offensive. As the ABA complaint put it:
Law firms have in some instances even changed the messages on their websites in an apparent effort to avoid scrutiny (or further scrutiny) from the Administration. For example, The Guardian published an article detailing changes to various law firm websites’ descriptions of their own pro bono efforts. According to that reporting, nearly two dozen law firms had changed their websites’ language related to diversity and pro bono work to make those websites “more closely align with Donald Trump’s priorities.”
Meanwhile, yet to be litigated is Trump’s order to Attorney General Pam Bondi instructing her to scour the records of Trump’s first and second administrations and bring ethics charges against any lawyer or law firm she deems to have “engaged in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States” and report the names to Trump personally, so that he too can take punitive action against them. In short, Trump’s war against lawyers is far from over and is already having a discernible impact.
A second, equally persuasive, justification for the ABA’s lawsuit is that it is a necessary attempt, from an organizational body tasked with upholding high standards for the practice of law in America, to rescue the reputation of an entire profession. Trump’s assault on lawyers, law firms, and judges has trained an entire political movement’s ire onto law practitioners. As a result, lawyers are quitting in protest and law student recruiting is taking a serious hit.
Clients are being forced to take sides. How do you value the continuity of your relationship with an existing legal representative against the reputational harm from continued association? Are there associational risks from leaving a Trump-compliant firm? The problem is compounded when a client needs a lawyer to represent them in cases against the government. Can firms that have capitulated be trusted not to pull their punches going forward?
From every perspective, Trump’s attack on lawyers is disruptive and disabling. And it is asking a great deal for law firms that have not yet been targeted by Trump to take action. They reasonably fear putting the bullseye on their metaphorical foreheads.
That is why the ABA needed to step in. Trump already hates the ABA. The DOJ, under Trump, has ordered government attorneys not to attend its events. Trump has told his judicial nominees not to cooperate with the ABA’s evaluation of their qualifications. As the ABA is already in Trump’s crosshairs, there was little the ABA could lose from legally taking Trump to task for his assault on the legal profession. As ABA President William Bay put it, there are “thousands of lawyers who are not party to” the cases protecting the four law firms, “and don’t have the resources to withstand that intimidation, and we’re standing up for them.”
More importantly, the ABA is also standing up for the rule of law—both figuratively and literally. Over the last 35 years, the ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative (ROLI) has trained judges and lawyers in over 100 countries. This work was funded primarily through the State Department and USAID to the tune of more than $350 million in pro bono legal assistance annually—and that too is at risk under Trump’s attack. Trump’s direct harassment of ABA and indirect targeting by cutting funding that it relies on will hurt the cause of defending individual rights abroad as well. When Trump goes after big American law firms, he is also going after their role as defenders of liberty, here and abroad. As Tocqueville once put it: “the authority ... intrusted to members of the legal profession ... is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.” No effective lawyers means no effective check on Trump’s excesses or that of authoritarians around the globe.
The ABA’s lawsuit isn’t “just another” fight with Trump. The national association of lawyers, numbering more than 250,000 members, has just gone to battle against a sitting American president. You don’t see that every day.
One Last Thing…
The Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism (ISMA), publisher of The UnPopulist, will convene its second annual, “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference—or LibCon2025, for short—from August 14 to 15 at D.C.’s Watergate Hotel. ISMA, once again, is assembling the world’s leading liberal thinkers, journalists, and advocates—including Francis Fukuyama, Ruth Marcus, Steven Pinker, Chandran Kukathas, Jack Goldsmith, David Goodhart, Derek Thompson, Jonathan Rauch, Suketu Mehta, Jennifer Mittelstadt, and many others (see the full program here)—for two days dedicated to countering the rise of illiberalism and charting a course forward for a revitalized liberalism that can answer the challenges of the modern era.
The event is open to the public but you’ll need to register to attend. Capacity is limited—last year we sold out several weeks before the event!—so act fast and ask your fellow liberals to do the same.
This is going to be the biggest and most important conclave of liberals held within living memory. You won’t want to miss it.
Thanks for supporting The UnPopulist and its mission. See you in August.
© The UnPopulist, 2025
Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.
We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy.
 | A guest post by
|
Two directives create the foundation for Trump’s authoritarian capacity. The Supreme Court’s decision that a president is not prosecutable for actions deemed to be part of his official duties while he holds office is the first. The second is Trump’s Executive Order dated February 18, 2025 which states that he is the sole authority on the legality of actions taken by the executive branch. If we accept both propositions then Trump has absolute authority and may do whatever he pleases. He merely proclaims that any action he takes is legal and that it is part of his presidential duty. He is the ultimate authority on right and wrong in the United States and has the full force and effect, plus all the resources of the US Government to fulfill his wishes. This is a formula for intimidation and authoritarian rule. Challenging decisions of the Supreme Court are difficult. What about challenging the legality and basis of presidential executive orders? Can the ABA tackle such a project?