The Trump administration’s recent actions regarding the U.S. legal community, particularly targeting law firms, have raised significant constitutional concerns reinforcing the view that his targeting of law firms is rooted in political retaliation. President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders targeting two prominent law firms, Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, have provoked significant constitutional concerns among legal experts. Trump described these law firms as “dishonest” and claimed their actions were “bad for the country”. Trump’s confirmation of his strategy to continue targeting law firms signal an escalation of political warfare in the legal field.

There is a clear rhetorical shift where Trump refers to law firms as “dishonest” and frames their work as harmful to national interests, which broadens the scope of his critique beyond individual actions to include a broader attack on the legal profession as a whole. Additionally, Trump’s reference to targeting more law firms and his claim that these efforts are meant to combat the “weaponization of law” (otherwise also called lawfare) against him signal a more expansive view of government power in regulating the legal community. This has led to fears of further restrictions and reprisals aimed at law firms and legal professionals who may oppose the administration’s policies or political stances.

The orders, issued in March 2025, specifically targeted Perkins Coie for its involvement in the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, where it was responsible for commissioning the ‘Steele dossier’, a controversial document detailing alleged connections between Trump and Russia. Covington & Burling, on the other hand, is currently representing special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing several criminal investigations involving Trump, including those related to the January 6 Capitol riot and classified documents.

In these executive orders, Trump sought to revoke the security clearances of individuals affiliated with the law firms, a move that has raised alarm over its potential to infringe on constitutional rights as this order restricts law firms’ and lawyers’ ability to access classified information, federal buildings, and limiting their capacity to serve certain clients. The orders also mandated reviews aimed at cutting government contracts with the firms. These actions have been criticized as politically motivated, with claims that they target law firms due to their connections to Trump’s political opponents, potentially undermining their ability to represent clients. These moves are seen by many as politically motivated retaliation, given the firms’ involvement in cases or clients that are opposed to Trump, including representing figures linked to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations.

Additionally, the administration’s approach has extended beyond individual firms, with Trump’s administration signaling plans to investigate and potentially sanction other law firms, particularly those engaged in DEI efforts. Critics contend that these actions encroach on First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and association, by politicizing the legal profession and intimidating firms into complying with government directives on DEI and other policies. Legal experts argue that Trump’s measures may also violate the Fifth Amendments, particularly in regard to due process. Critics have expressed concern that these orders amount to retaliation against law firms for their legal work and association with individuals engaged in actions that oppose Trump. The constitutional implications of such executive orders are significant, as they could set a precedent for future administrations to use executive powers to interfere with the legal representation of political adversaries.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association, prohibiting government actions that discriminate based on viewpoints or suppress political expression. Trump’s orders attacking the political positions and affiliations of the law firms, appear to target these entities for their support of causes and clients opposing his political agenda, such as representing figures connected to the Russia investigation or supporting DEI programs. Legal experts, including Catherine Ross from George Washington University and Laurence Tribe from Harvard, argue that this constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is explicitly prohibited under the First Amendment. The executive orders target these law firms specifically because of their political associations and positions, such as Perkins Coie’s involvement in the Russia investigation and Covington & Burling’s work with Special Counsel Jack Smith. By stripping security clearances and blocking these firms from doing business with the government, the orders essentially punish them for their political speech and affiliations. This constitutes viewpoint discrimination, as the government is taking action against these firms specifically because of the political stances they have taken or the clients they have represented, which is in direct violation of First Amendment protections.

Additionally, the freedom of association is also at risk. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals and groups to associate with others for political, social, and professional purposes. By targeting law firms based on their association with certain political figures and causes, the executive orders infringe upon their right to associate freely. These actions discourage law firms from associating with politically controversial clients or causes, as they may fear retaliation from the government, interfering with the freedom of association, undermining the ability of law firms to choose which clients and causes they wish to represent.

The executive orders targeting law firms could potentially violate the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which includes the Due Process Clause, protecting individuals from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The executive orders could violate due process by stripping security clearances from attorneys at these firms without providing a fair process. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that individuals have a right to notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing before their rights or property are taken away.

In this case, the orders directly remove security clearances and block government contracts for lawyers based on their involvement in politically sensitive issues or their affiliations with clients opposing Trump, yet they do not appear to offer any formal hearing, legal justification, or transparent process. This deprives the lawyers of their professional rights and opportunities without adequate due process. Moreover, the orders specifically target law firms for their political positions and affiliations, which could be seen as discrimination based on viewpoints. This raises the issue of whether the government is using its power to punish individuals or entities based on their political beliefs, a practice that is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. If the actions are politically motivated rather than based on legitimate concerns, such as national security, this arbitrary treatment may be unconstitutional.

This unprecedented action has prompted widespread alarm, particularly from legal professionals and institutions that view the orders as a direct attack on the legal community’s autonomy. Legal experts, such as Ellen Podgor from Stetson University, argue that these executive actions undermine the fundamental right to the assistance of counsel—a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system enshrined in the Sixth Amendment. Podgor noted that such actions could effectively deprive individuals of their right to select legal representation freely, violating constitutional protections. This right guarantees the right to the effective assistance of legal counsel. This right ensures that individuals accused of crimes have the ability to secure competent legal representation, and it is a critical component of not only the U.S. justice system but it is a global expectation in most legal systems (in Hungary as well, also in line with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR).

The executive orders’ actions—stripping security clearances and blocking government contracts for lawyers associated with these firms—could limit their ability to represent clients effectively, especially those facing actions by the administration. If lawyers are ostracized for their political views or associations, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be gravely undermined, as individuals could be denied competent representation in politically sensitive matters.

Security clearances are often necessary for attorneys to represent clients involved in cases involving classified or sensitive information. Without these clearances, attorneys may be unable to fully access important case materials, preventing them from providing effective representation. For instance, if an attorney can no longer access federal buildings or classified materials, they could be unable to defend their clients adequately in cases that involve national security issues, classified information, or other sensitive government documents. This Amendment also ensures that individuals accused of crimes have the right to competent legal counsel, and this includes the right to choose one’s attorney. By preventing specific law firms from representing their clients due to political retribution or the loss of security clearances, the executive orders could violate this fundamental constitutional right.

Targeting these law firms, specifically for their association with politically sensitive cases, could have a chilling effect on others in the legal profession. The ability to choose one’s lawyer is a cornerstone of the legal system, and by restricting certain law firms from participating in cases, the government may be effectively limiting individuals’ access to competent counsel of their choosing.  If attorneys are aware that taking on politically charged cases or representing high-profile clients may lead to government retaliation, they may be less likely to take on such cases, even when their clients’ Sixth Amendment rights are at stake.  Attorneys engaged in strategic litigation often take on cases that may not only involve the immediate interests of their clients but also have the potential to influence public opinion, bring attention to a cause, or set legal precedents. This fear of government retaliation could further erode the ability of individuals to secure effective legal representation, which is essential to the fairness of the justice system. This practice is called strategic litigation which, in the context of the Sixth Amendment rights, which guarantee might pressure lawyers to become hesitant to represent politically charged clients or take on high-profile cases if they fear government retaliation. This hesitation could undermine strategic litigation, especially when the case challenges certain government actions, policies, or rights violations that require legal advocacy to bring about systemic change.

The legal community has responded with a mix of concern and caution. While some law firms have remained hesitant to speak out, fearing retribution, others, including law schools and independent groups, have raised alarms about the broader implications for the rule of law. The American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Bar Association have condemned the administration’s actions, warning that such measures could erode public trust in the justice system. Moreover, the orders’ accusations of racial discrimination and dishonest conduct are contentious, with some experts questioning the veracity of these claims and the lack of a clear legal framework to support them. The law firms in question have vowed to challenge the executive orders in court, setting the stage for a potentially landmark legal battle over the intersection of executive power, the legal profession, and constitutional rights.

In summary, Trump’s orders targeting Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling have ignited a fierce debate over constitutional protections, with experts emphasizing the potential dangers of executive overreach endangering the independence of the legal profession and the need for robust judicial scrutiny of such actions. The legal challenge ahead could have lasting implications by potentially setting a precedent, for the boundaries of executive power in the United States, particularly regarding the ability of the government to interfere with the legal representation of individuals based on political considerations.

In European countries, the separation between the legal profession and the political realm may not be as pronounced as in the US, where the Constitution guarantees strong protections for legal representation. Many European countries are still grappling with how to safeguard the autonomy of legal professionals in the face of political influence (mainly in the judiciary and prosecution). The situation in the US serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the risks posed by political retribution in the legal field and the potential erosion of fundamental constitutional rights.

As both the American and European legal systems navigate the challenges laid out above, it is essential to ensure that the right to legal representation and the freedom of the legal profession remain protected from political interference, reinforcing the need for international cooperation and vigilance in defending these rights.

Dorina BOSITS is a law student at the Széchenyi István University of Győr, Hungary, and an international finance and accounting graduate of the University of Applied Sciences of Wiener Neustadt, Austria. She is currently enrolled for an exchange semester at the Karl Franzes University of Graz, Austria. The main area of her research includes freedom of speech, digitalization, space law, data protection, and financial law. She is a student at the Law School of MCC and a member of ELSA Győr.