Trump escalates campaign against law firms challenging his authority

In the United States, in a remarkable series of events culminated in March 2025, Donald Trump, the then-current president, began targeting law firms that opposed his administration. His actions included signing executive orders aimed at punishing legal practices that had represented individuals or cases that he perceived as detrimental to his interests. This culminated in significant actions against notable firms such as Covington & Burling LLP and Perkins Coie, with Trump explicitly justifying these measures by claiming those firms engaged in 'bad' behaviors, despite a lack of evidence substantiating his accusations. Legal observers noted that these actions marked a drastic escalation in the president's political tactics, which could be seen as an attempt to control a key institution of American democracy—the legal profession. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked one of Trump's executive orders, highlighting the alarming implications of the president's campaign. Howell expressed her concerns, stating that the administration's actions were causing unease within the legal community, exemplified by the strong response from both judges and lawyers alike. Moreover, Trump's tactics signified a broader strategy to undermine the authority and independence of legal institutions within the country, particularly focusing on prominent law firms collectively referred to as 'Big Law.' Observers have remarked that while some legal entities have pushed back against Trump’s policies, many have remained silent or complied with the president's demands. The chilling effect of the White House's campaign against law firms was evident with reports of some firms conceding to Trump's requirements in exchange for retaining their status and avoiding punitive action. The political climate surrounding these events also drew attention from members of Congress, including Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, who characterized the president's actions as dangerous. As Trump continued his campaign, many legal experts and political analysts expressed their worries that such executive orders were echoing tactics commonly associated with authoritarian regimes, raising questions about the future of judicial independence and the role of legal representation in America's political landscape.