Trump's Paul Weiss Agreement Backfires: Law Firms Challenge Executive Orders' Legitimacy
President Donald Trump's agreement with law firm Paul Weiss, initially seen as a strategic win, is now used in court to challenge his executive orders. The deal, announced in March 2025, involved $40 million in pro bono services. However, opposing firms argue the orders were politically motivated, not based on national security. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell's ruling highlighted the rapid rescission of an order against Paul Weiss, questioning its legitimacy. The legal community is divided, with some seeing the deal as pragmatic, while others view it as enabling executive overreach.
Key Updates
05/09 02:31
Trump's Paul Weiss Agreement Backfires: Law Firms Challenge Executive Orders' Legitimacy
President Donald Trump's agreement with law firm Paul Weiss, initially seen as a strategic win, is now used in court to challenge his executive orders. The deal, announced in March 2025, involved $40 million in pro bono services. However, opposing firms argue the orders were politically motivated, not based on national security. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell's ruling highlighted the rapid rescission of an order against Paul Weiss, questioning its legitimacy. The legal community is divided, with some seeing the deal as pragmatic, while others view it as enabling executive overreach.
A Deal Framed as a Win
In March 2025, President Trump announced a landmark agreement with Paul Weiss, a prominent law firm, as part of a broader initiative to secure pro bono legal support for causes aligned with his administration. The firm pledged $40 million in free legal services, joining a group of eight other firms that collectively committed nearly $1 billion in pro bono hours. These services were to support initiatives such as assisting military veterans, combating antisemitism, and promoting fairness in the justice system.
Trump celebrated the deal on his Truth Social platform, portraying it as a major win in his ongoing campaign against law firms that had previously opposed him in court. Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp reportedly told colleagues that the agreement resolved an “existential crisis” that could have “easily destroyed” the firm.
However, the agreement lacked detailed public documentation. According to a copy obtained by Bloomberg Law, the deal mirrored Trump’s social media announcement and did not specify how the pledged services would be delivered or monitored. A separate agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission required confidential biannual compliance reports to the White House through January 2029.
Legal Challenges and Courtroom Fallout
While Paul Weiss and other firms chose to cooperate with the administration, four major law firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—opted to challenge the executive orders in court. These orders had targeted the firms by threatening to revoke security clearances and restrict access to federal buildings, citing national security concerns.
The legal pushback was swift and effective. Federal judges issued temporary restraining orders blocking the implementation of the executive actions. In one of the most significant rulings to date, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked the order against Perkins Coie, stating in a 102-page opinion that the administration’s justification lacked credibility.
Judge Howell specifically referenced the Paul Weiss deal in her ruling, noting that the executive order targeting Paul Weiss was rescinded just six days after it was issued. “None of these agreed-upon policy or practice changes appear to explain or address how any national security concerns sufficient to warrant the Paul, Weiss EO could have changed so rapidly,” she wrote. The speed of the reversal, she concluded, undermined the claim that national security was the true motivation behind the order.
A Legal Argument Against Legitimacy
In a Washington, D.C., federal courtroom, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing Susman Godfrey, echoed this argument. He told the court that the rapid reversal of the Paul Weiss order demonstrated that the administration never genuinely believed the firm posed a national security threat. “There was no change in circumstances with respect to the trustworthiness of Paul Weiss between the issuing of that executive order and its rescission a few days later,” Verrilli said.
The argument has become central to the legal strategy of the firms challenging the orders. They contend that the executive actions were not based on individualized security assessments, as required by law, but were instead politically motivated attempts to coerce law firms into compliance.
Judge Howell’s opinion supported this view, stating that Trump’s actions and public statements suggested the orders were driven by personal animus and a desire to extract large pro bono commitments. She also noted that Trump had described the order against Susman Godfrey as “just the start of the process,” implying that the orders were intended as negotiating tools rather than legitimate national security measures.
Dividing the Legal Community
The Paul Weiss deal has sparked debate within the legal profession. Some view the firm’s decision to cooperate with the Trump administration as pragmatic, aimed at protecting its business interests. Others argue that it set a dangerous precedent by legitimizing executive overreach and emboldening the administration to target additional firms.
Critics have pointed out that by agreeing to the deal, Paul Weiss may have inadvertently strengthened Trump’s hand, allowing him to claim a victory and pressure other firms into similar agreements. However, the legal backlash has turned the deal into a double-edged sword. The very agreement that was meant to shield Paul Weiss from punitive action is now being used to dismantle the legal foundation of the executive orders themselves.
A Turning Point in the Legal Battle
The courtroom developments mark a significant shift in the legal battle between the Trump administration and Big Law. What began as a campaign to punish firms perceived as adversarial has evolved into a broader legal reckoning over the limits of executive power and the role of political motivation in national security decisions.
As the cases proceed, the Paul Weiss deal remains a focal point. It is cited repeatedly by judges and attorneys as evidence that the administration’s actions were not rooted in legitimate security concerns. Instead, the deal is portrayed as a transactional arrangement that undermines the credibility of the executive orders and raises questions about the administration’s use of legal authority.
With more rulings expected in the coming months, the legal community continues to watch closely. The outcome of these cases could have lasting implications for the relationship between the executive branch and the legal profession—and for the boundaries of presidential power in targeting perceived opponents.
