The legal landscape continues to shift under the Trump administration, evidenced by the recent executive order aimed at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This move follows similar actions against other prominent firms such as Covington and Perkins Coie.

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to suspend security clearances held by individuals at Paul, Weiss pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.

As part of the executive order, federal agencies have also been ordered to terminate any agreements where Paul Weiss is involved. The firm’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion will undergo a thorough examination as well.

Context and Background

In a speech earlier that day, President Trump expressed his dissatisfaction with various law firms, branding them “crooked” for their role in his legal challenges. He specifically called out lawyers including Jack Smith and Letitia James, asserting, “These are people that are bad people, really bad people.” He added that their attempts to undermine his administration had failed.

The executive order seems to be a direct response to the actions of Mark Pomerantz, a former partner at Paul, Weiss, who has been described as “unethical” by the administration for his role in pursuing legal action against Trump after leaving the firm.

Response from Paul, Weiss

Following the announcement of the executive order, Paul Weiss issued a statement pointing out the order’s focus on Pomerantz, who retired from the firm in 2012:

“We have seen press reports about an executive order, which is focused on the activities of Mark Pomerantz, who retired from the firm in 2012 and went on to work at the District Attorney’s office nearly a decade later. Mr. Pomerantz has not been affiliated with the firm for many years. The terms of a similar order were enjoined as unconstitutional earlier this week by a federal district court judge.”

Legal experts anticipate that the new order targeting Paul Weiss may face similar legal challenges as the previous one against Perkins Coie, which encountered significant legal obstacles.