WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has targeted some of the nation’s most prominent institutions, including major U.S. law firms, with his recent executive orders, a part of his broader agenda that enforces his influence across various sectors.
One key incident involved Paul Weiss, a noted New York law firm established in 1875. Known for its advocacy in civil rights and representation of influential corporate entities, the firm found itself caught in Trump’s crosshairs as a result of one of its former attorneys’ previous investigation into Trump during their tenure as a Manhattan prosecutor.
Trump’s directive sought to review the federal security clearances of the firm’s attorneys, terminate its federal contracts, and restrict their access to federal sites. However, negotiations with the White House eventually led to a withdrawal of the order in exchange for commitments, including significant legal work contributions aligned with the administration’s objectives. This compromise sparked criticism within the legal community, perceiving it as a submission to presidential pressure.
This tactic of using presidential power to leverage and negotiate with influential establishments isn’t limited to Paul Weiss. Other firms, such as Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, also struck deals following similar circumstances, reflecting a trend where institutions must decide between legal battles or compromise. Critics argue this emboldens further extortion, as opponents of Trump become focal points under his administration. Ty Cobb, a former White House lawyer, voiced concerns over the extortionate implications of these tactics, while some legal conservatives defend Trump’s prerogative in choosing business dealings and security clearances.
Though some entities resist — by initiating lawsuits to challenge executive orders — the administration’s strategies seem focused on those linked with prosecutors who previously investigated Trump’s activities. One of these firms, Paul Weiss, received attention for employing Mark Pomerantz, an attorney involved in probing Trump’s finances, pushing the firm to reconsider its stance amid potential legal repercussions and client perceptions.
Under similar pressure, Columbia University had to confront Trump’s administration over their handling of protests tied to international conflicts. Subsequently, it adopted new policies and changes as conditions to restore billions in federal funding previously withdrawn. The administration also extended these tactics to other academic institutions and media organizations.
Media outlets too have felt the administration’s reach. ABC News and Meta settled lawsuits with Trump, and news companies have been selectively targeted based on their coverage. The administration even took steps to significantly curtail operations for government-funded media like Voice of America.
Such actions by Trump illustrate an aggressive approach towards extracting compliance and concessions, impacting the legal sphere, academic institutions, and the media landscape. His presidency continues to challenge established norms, testing resilience and adaptation across fields typically seen as independent bastions of power.