In recent developments from Washington, President Donald Trump announced on Thursday his decision to revoke the security clearances of attorneys associated with Perkins Coie, a notable law firm. This firm was engaged in producing opposition research during the 2016 presidential campaign, which focused on potential connections between Trump, the Republican candidate at the time, and Russia. This effort has since been discredited.
The move against Perkins Coie is part of a broader pattern of actions from Trump and his administration aimed at addressing a wide array of perceived adversaries. These adversaries include Justice Department prosecutors, long-standing intelligence officials, and recently, attorneys in private practice. Collectively, these actions appear aimed not just at settling past disputes, but as a warning to both public officials and private sector individuals against participating in future investigations into Trump’s actions.
During the signing of the executive order in the Oval Office, Trump remarked, “This is an absolute honor to sign. What they’ve done is just terrible. It’s weaponization — you could say weaponization against a political opponent, and it should never be allowed to happen again.”
The executive order instructs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, and relevant agency heads to take lawful steps to temporarily suspend any active security clearances of individuals at Perkins Coie, pending a determination of whether these clearances align with national interests. The order does not specify the number of attorneys at the law firm affected, and the firm has not responded to a request for comment.
The decision arises from Perkins Coie’s involvement with Fusion GPS, a research firm hired to investigate Trump’s connections to Russia. This work was organized by Marc Elias, a former partner at Perkins Coie and Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer during the 2016 election, who has since left the firm for his own practice.
Fusion GPS subsequently hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, whose dossier gained attention in Washington during the campaign period. This dossier, which was provided to the FBI, alleged that Russia was assisting Trump and held compromising information on him. However, much of the dossier was later deemed unverified and loaded with speculation, with Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report stating that FBI agents could not substantiate a “single substantive allegation” from Steele’s findings. Despite this, Steele continues to support his research.
The dossier became public in January 2017, just weeks before Trump’s inauguration, when it was disclosed that then-FBI Director James Comey had briefed Trump about the allegations it contained. Further controversy arose when it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had financially backed the dossier, casting further doubt on its validity — a point Trump frequently highlighted as president, labeling it “phony” and inaccurate.
Trump and his allies have persistently used the dossier’s deficiencies to discredit the entire investigation into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that the FBI inquiry commenced months before the dossier’s existence was known to its agents based on a separate tip concerning a Trump campaign aide’s knowledge of Russia possessing compromising information on Hillary Clinton before the hacking of Democratic emails became public.
Though Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find conclusive evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign, it did uncover significant acts of Russian interference aiming to support the Republican candidate, revealing that the campaign was open to such aid.
Under Trump’s administration, actions have been taken against Justice Department prosecutors involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump, including revoking security clearances for lawyers representing Smith and for ex-intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop controversy might signal Russian disinformation.
The same executive order also criticizes the firm for what is described by the Trump administration as improper diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. This criticism follows a directive by Attorney General Pam Bondi urging the Justice Department’s civil rights division to scrutinize, eliminate, and sanction unlawful DEI measures within private sectors and federally-funded educational institutions.
