Retaliation or Reform? Big Law Firms Battle Trump Over Loyalty, Diversity

While several of the country’s top law firms have capitulated to demands from the Trump administration—agreeing to scale back diversity initiatives, not pursue litigation the president disagrees with, and pledge millions in pro bono legal services—others are refusing to comply, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal showdown over federal contracting, political pressure, and the limits of executive power.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

In recent weeks, firms such as Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP have reached settlements with the administration to preserve their ability to compete for government contracts. In exchange, they’ve agreed to provide between $40 million and $100 million in legal services to causes favored by the White House—such as veteran support, antisemitism prevention, and “fairness” in the justice system—and, in some cases, to scale back internal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

But not every firm is cooperating with the White House.

Major legal powerhouses including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block have rejected the administration’s demands and are pursuing legal action, arguing that recent executive orders are unconstitutional. These firms, which have previously represented clients in litigation against former President Donald Trump—including challenges related to the 2020 election, the travel ban, and the January 6 investigation—are now accusing the administration of political retaliation.

Attorneys representing these firms say the orders violate First Amendment protections and amount to a purge of ideological opponents from federal legal work.

“The message is clear: if you’ve ever crossed this administration, your access to federal business is in jeopardy,” said a partner at one resisting firm, speaking anonymously to discuss ongoing legal strategy.

The Trump administration, for its part, insists that the initiative is not politically motivated. Officials argue the actions are necessary to ensure law firms receiving taxpayer dollars are not engaged in what they call “discriminatory practices” through DEI initiatives, and that legal service providers remain neutral in politically sensitive matters.

However, critics point to a pattern. Perkins Coie, for instance, served as outside counsel for the Democratic National Committee and was involved in efforts to defend the 2020 election results. WilmerHale represented clients in litigation tied to the Mueller investigation, while Jenner & Block advised the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. All three are now facing the loss of security clearances and active contracts under the administration’s orders.

Meanwhile, firms that have reached agreements—such as Willkie Farr—are coming under scrutiny from civil rights groups and legal ethicists. The firm, where Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, is a partner, is facing calls for accountability. Critics say the firm’s concessions to the administration stand in contrast to Emhoff’s public advocacy for civil rights and equality.

The controversy has ignited debate within the legal profession about independence, political neutrality, and the cost of doing business with an ideologically driven executive branch that continues to consolidate power.

As the legal challenges proceed, the outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations use contracting power to influence private sector practices—and whether the courts will draw a line.