WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has announced the implementation of executive orders aimed at law firms, citing national security as the primary reason. The White House insists that these firms should not have access to sensitive U.S. government information. However, there is concern that the scope of these orders is overly broad, potentially undermining national security by affecting security clearances for lawyers who, besides practicing law, serve as military reservists and need their clearances for military duty.
This situation highlights the extensive and sometimes unintended outcomes of White House attempts to modify civil society, wherein those bearing the impact weren’t always the primary targets envisioned by the Trump administration. For instance, Trump’s broad federal cutbacks have not excluded military veterans.
These executive orders mainly target firms with links to prosecutors who have previously investigated Trump or employ, or have employed, attorneys viewed by him as political foes. The consequences outlined in these orders frequently involve threatening the suspension of all active security clearances for employees at the targeted firms.
Security clearances are necessary for government employees and contractors who need classified national security information to fulfill their duties. The executive branch and its agencies retain substantial authority in deciding who receives such clearances.
It remains uncertain how many lawyers at the four firms currently under these executive orders—several others have managed to avoid them through agreements with the White House—hold security clearances due to their job roles or other commitments. Moreover, it is unclear if the Trump administration will pursue plans to revoke the clearances of military reservists.
When approached for comments, a White House spokesperson pointed to a clause in the order stating that the clearances are to be put on hold “pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” This response suggested that the clearances for reservists might be spared.
This issue was raised during a court hearing on Friday where a lawyer representing WilmerHale, one of the affected firms, mentioned that their workforce includes military reservists with security clearances. Another firm facing similar executive order implications, Perkins Coie, also stated that it employs military reservists.
“I don’t believe for a second that the government attorney intends to suspend the reservists’ security clearances,” Paul Clement, a well-known Washington appellate lawyer representing WilmerHale, stated before the judge. “But they are using such all-encompassing methods with this policy that they are failing to differentiate between targets.”
Clement further highlighted, “Two of those attorneys must report for their reserve duty next week. At this point, I can’t assure you that they won’t encounter difficulties in fulfilling their roles if their security clearances are nullified.”
A few firms, such as WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, have successfully obtained court injunctions temporarily restraining some sections of these executive orders. Nonetheless, the security clearance sections remain untouched, illustrating the president’s extensive authority in suspending or revoking clearances.
Dan Meyer, an attorney with expertise in security clearances at the Tully Rinckey law firm—a firm not affected by these executive orders—suggested that the number of attorneys at major firms with such clearances is likely minimal. It remains plausible that military reservists may be able to retain their clearances but might require a protracted adjudication process.
“It’s possible that an informal directive may emerge from the White House saying, ‘Do not interfere with any reservists at these law firms,’” Meyer noted. Yet, he cautioned, “If the powers that be wish to pursue this, there’s a chance to do so.”