Trump latest executive order flipped the safety off the government’s lawfare defenses. The last of yesterday’s EO was titled, “ Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court.” Reuters ran the story under the headline, “Trump Asks Bondi to Scrutinize Lawyers Who Fight US in Courts.”

image 4.png
The order directed newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “review conduct” by lawyers and law firms who engage in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” against the US. “Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity,” Trump wrote in the memo.

In plain English, Trump’s new executive order wasn’t only about legal ethics—it declared open hunting season on the class of lawyers who turned suing the federal government into a cottage industry during the last eight years. Wrapped in language about “restoring the integrity of the legal system,” the EO ordered the Attorney General to dig through past litigation for signs of so-called abuse—“frivolous lawsuits,” “fraudulent practices,” or other conduct that could justify sanctions, disbarment, or even security clearance reviews.

That last part is the tell. By invoking security clearances, Trump escalated the lawfare activists to the level of a national security concern, thereby weaponizing the courts as a tool for striking back.

What makes this EO a watershed moment was the targeting direction. For years, the legal Left swamped federal dockets with activist litigation, much of it designed less to win cases so much as to delay, entangle, or extract headlines.

Until now, the consequences were mostly reserved for Trump’s own lawyers, who’ve been sued, disbarred, and encased in leftwing blowback like swarms of angry hornets. But this EO flipped the script: it formalized retroactive scrutiny of government critics under the banner of ethics enforcement, potentially banning them from federal courtrooms, stripping clearances, or canceling lucrative federal legal contracts.

It wasn’t just a memo—it was a message: if you wage lawfare against the government, you’d better be on all fours, or the government might litigate back.

? This latest Executive Order was a large-scale, expanded version of a previous order that imposed clearance and contractual sanctions on firms involved in the RussiaGate hoax during Trump’s first term. That order has already borne fruit. This morning, The Hill ran the widely-reported story under the headline, Democrats, lawyers left reeling from Paul, Weiss firm’s Trump deal.

image 5.png
It only took 48 hours. On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a hysterical op-ed titled, “Trump’s efforts to intimidate the legal profession cannot stand.” Two days later, the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison firm completely caved. For context, Paul Weiss lawyer Mark Pomerantz coordinated the Alvin Bragg “hush money” case against Trump.

Live by the sword of activism, die by the sword of activism. To get back into the government’s good graces, Paul Weiss wisely conceded that their now-former partner Pomerantz had behaved unethically. It also agreed to undergo outside audits of their hiring practices, to ensure DEI is completely pressure-washed from the firm. And it agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono (free) legal services to causes of the Administration’s concern. (Think defending the Proud Boys.)

During the early pandemic, I often observed how large law firms were completely AWOL from the legal fight to challenge Biden’s unconstitutional mandates, orders, school closures, and “health guidances.” For the first two years, only small firms like mine fought back to defend the Constitution. I frequently speculated the reason for BigLaw’s conspicuous absence was because it is beholden to government contracts— and thus hopelessly conflicted.

Now, the government contract chickens are coming home to roost. Two other big law firms targeted by Trump’s earlier EO, including Perkins Coie, the firm that managed RussiaGate for the Clintons, are still fighting their punishment. But the fight itself is part of the punishment.

And now, in his latest order, Trump has multiplied the same tactic that brought Paul Weiss to heel, extending it to the entire legal profession. Activism just got a whole lot harder, since law firms must now make completely sure their arguments are legally founded, and because previously consequence-free lawfare activism just acquired some risk.

The game is changing fast. Try to keep up.

Jeff Childers