In recent weeks, the administration of US President Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign against major law firms that have in the past represented political opponents.

Within a two-week period, Trump issued executive orders targeting firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. Both firms have ties to individuals who have been thorns in the president’s side. Covington & Burling represents Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to investigate Trump’s handling of classified documents and conduct surrounding the 2020 election. Smith’s investigations resulted in federal indictments, which were dismissed following Trump’s latest presidential victory. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won.

Critics have expressed deep discomfort with the moves and their implication for the rule of law, arguing that these actions have created a chilling effect throughout the legal profession, raising serious concerns about judicial independence and constitutional separation of powers.

In the weeks between the White House’s release of the two orders, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued stark words of warning:

Now the government has decided to punish a prominent Washington, DC, law firm [ed: Covington & Burling] because it represents a party that the administration does not like. There are also reports that actions may be taken against more law firms. Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government. Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution. These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.

In this explainer, we will explore the orders, the firms and attorneys they target, and what critics say may be at stake for the US rule of law.

What actions has the Trump administration taken against law firms?

On February 25, an executive order targeting Covington & Burling suspended security clearances for firm employees who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith and directed agencies to terminate engagements with the firm “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

The March 6 order against Perkins Coie went further, not only suspending security clearances but also restricting firm employees’ access to federal buildings, limiting government employees’ interactions with firm personnel, and requiring government contractors to disclose business relationships with the firm. It also launched a broader investigation into diversity initiatives at “large, influential, or industry leading law firms.”

What justifications has the administration provided?

The White House has framed these actions in terms of combating the “weaponization of the judicial process” and a “refocusing [of] government operations to its core mission — serving the citizens of the United States.”

For Covington & Burling, the administration alleged the firm provided Smith with “$140,000 in free legal services” supporting investigations that “spent more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars to target President Trump.”

Regarding Perkins Coie, the order claimed the firm engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” and hired Fusion GPS, which allegedly “manufactured a false ‘dossier’ designed to steal an election.” It also accused the firm of racial discrimination through its diversity programs.

How have the targeted firms responded?

Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit challenging the order as unconstitutional. The suit alleges violations of separation of powers, due process, equal protection, and First Amendment rights. It systematically refutes the order’s allegations, noting that attorneys involved in the Fusion GPS matter no longer work at the firm and that Trump’s previous lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

Covington & Burling has thus far remained largely quiet on the issue.

What impact have these orders had?

For Perkins Coie, the impact was immediate and severe. In its federal complaint, the firm wrote:

In short: the Order has had its intended effect already—irreparable impact that will only continue to grow. The disparagement of the firm, which signals to present and prospective clients alike that it is persona non grata with the Administration, combined with the threat of termination of clients’ government contracts and suspension of security clearances, has caused financial and reputational harm to the firm. By reason of the Order, the firm has lost clients, lost business … and received worried inquiries from clients, including its largest clients, which question whether it can adequately represent them in light of the Administration’s demonstrated animus.

More broadly, The Wall Street Journal reported that the executive orders have already had a chilling effect across the legal industry:

In private conversations, partners at some of the nation’s leading firms have expressed outrage at the president’s actions. What they haven’t been willing to do is say so publicly. Back-channel efforts to persuade major law firms to sign public statements criticizing Trump’s actions thus far have foundered, in part because of retaliation fears, people familiar with the matter said.

How has the judiciary responded?

On March 13, US District Judge Beryl Howell granted Perkins Coie a temporary injunction blocking key parts of the Executive Order. Though the order itself is brief and narrowly tailored, the judge’s comments during the hearing have attracted attention for the dim pallor they cast on the rule of law in the country.

The ABA Journal cited Howell as having said during the hearing: “I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here. … The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”

What are the broader implications for the legal profession?

The orders have served as a rallying cry for legal and professional associations across the country who warn that a legal industry fearful of running afoul of the presidential administration will not be able to effectively support the rule of law.

The American College of Trial Lawyers said of the orders: “We speak today to affirm that the Rule of Law depends upon lawyers being free to advocate for all causes, to represent those in need of legal representation, and to challenge government actions that may violate statutory and constitutional norms. The current administration ignores these principles when it seeks to impose through a series of Executive Orders a variety of punitive measures against lawyers and law firms that represent federal prosecutors, federal agents.”

Boston Bar Association President Matthew McTygue described the Covington & Burling order as “an alarming step in undermining the rule of law,” describing the move as sending a “chilling message to all lawyers, that representation of individuals out of favor with the Administration could invite retaliation by the federal government.”

The Chicago Council of Lawyers warned that the Trump administration’s orders were autocratic in nature: “The use of government power to punish perceived ‘enemies’ is a hallmark of autocracy. By taking these actions against Covington & Burling, the Trump administration is attempting to intimidate other attorneys and law firms from representing persons who oppose the administration’s agenda.”

The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association said of the Perkins Coie order: “The Rule of Law, and indeed our entire legal system, are jeopardized when government officials threaten and retaliate against lawyers and law firms merely for representing clients whom the Administration disfavors or perceives as political opponents. No ordered democracy can long stand if such a threat persists.”