In a significant reversal, President Donald Trump has rescinded an executive order that targeted the prominent law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This decision follows revelations that the firm would abandon its diversity policies and commit $40 million in pro bono legal services to support White House initiatives.
The original executive order, which Trump signed on March 14, 2025, aimed to terminate federal contracts with the firm and suspend the security clearances of its lawyers, citing claims that they were undermining the U.S. judicial system. It also accused Paul, Weiss of having played a notable role in the judicial controversies surrounding the Trump administration, specifically referencing a partner's pro bono representation of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riots. Additionally, the order targeted steadfast critic Mark Pomerantz, a former partner who was linked to investigations concerning Trump, including a felony conviction involving hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
In a post on social media platform Truth Social, Trump announced the rescinding of the executive order after a meeting with Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss. The firm has agreed to a series of concessions designed to placate the administration, including a commitment to "merit-based" hiring practices and a pledge to not utilize or pursue any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Karp expressed gratitude for the President’s decision, stating, "We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration." The rapprochement with the Trump administration has led to mixed reactions within the legal community.
One notable response came from Marc Elias, a prominent Democrat-aligned lawyer who previously worked with Perkins Coie. He described the agreement as a "stain on the firm, every one of its partners, and the entire legal profession," expressing condemnation on the platform Bluesky, where he criticized Paul Weiss for what he characterized as a "sad day for the legal industry" and lamented its capitulation.
Additionally, the uproar stirred dissent within the firm itself. In a scathing company-wide email, Rachel Cohen, an associate attorney at Skadden Arps, tendered her resignation, expressing that she would reconsider only if the firm addressed the current situation satisfactorily. Cohen had previously requested her firm to support a brief opposing the Trump administration's actions. Her resignation was part of a broader backlash, with more than 300 associates from various law firms signing an open letter denouncing corporate law firms for giving in to Trump's pressures.
Despite its controversial decision, Paul Weiss has maintained a robust financial standing, claiming over $2 billion in annual revenue in 2023 and employing more than 1,000 attorneys across its offices. Legal experts have indicated that revoking security clearance posed substantial obstacles for the firm’s dealings with various corporate and financial clients, given the sensitive nature of information shared within the legal framework.
Initially, Trump’s directive indicated a more extensive confrontation against law firms perceived to be resistant to his policies. The executive orders against Paul Weiss extended to other firms such as Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, emphasizing his administration's intention to dismantle DEI-related initiatives across the federal government. Trump's administration has remained adamant about discouraging any representation that opposes its stance.
The rescinding of the order marks a pivotal moment not just for Paul Weiss but also signals broader implications for how legal entities might navigate their relationships with the federal government under the current administration. As the legal community braces for the repercussions of this agreement, one must ponder the future of legal representation and advocacy in an increasingly polarized political environment.
As this situation unfolds, one thing remains clear: the complexity of law in the face of political maneuvering often reveals the challenging balance between professional integrity and the pressures exerted by those in power. Trump's dealings may set a concerning precedent not only for Paul Weiss but for the entire legal landscape, urging law firms to reconsider their commitments to ethical standards and diversity initiatives in a politically charged atmosphere.
