In a startling display of pettiness and vengeance, Trump lashed out at two law firms that dared to represent his critics. This is not normal. Law firms don’t get punished because of whom they represent. But to Trump, everything is personal. Anyone who is not on his side is an enemy. Anyone who represents his enemy is his enemy and should expect vengeance to rain down on them.
President Trump signed an executive orderon Thursday seeking to severely punish the law firm Perkins Coie by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials — a form of payback for its legal work for Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign.
With the order, Perkins Coie becomes the second such firm to be targeted by the president. Late last month, he signed a similar memorandum attacking Covington & Burling, which has done pro bono legal work for Jack Smith, who as special counsel pursued two separate indictments of Mr. Trump.
While the Covington memorandum sought to strip clearances and contracts from that firm, the Perkins Coie order goes much further, seeking to also limit its lawyers’ access to federal buildings, officials and jobs in a way that could cast a chilling effect over the entire legal profession.
The president’s animosity toward Perkins Coie dates back eight years, to when two lawyers at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann, played roles in what eventually became an F.B.I. investigation to determine if anyone on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign conspired with Russian agents to influence the outcome of that election. Both lawyers left that firm years ago.
If Trump had his way, any newspaper or network or cable station that criticized him would lose its license, any TV journalist or writer would lose their job. Any criticism of him would be banned. Anyone who abetted a critic would be punished.
There are words for such behavior: censorship. Fascist. Dictator. Thin-skinned. Authoritarian.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Are not these “executive orders” a modern equivalent to bills of attainder?
Courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder: 1. Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections. 2. The law inflicts punishment and 3. The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder which allow a government to pick off its “enemies” one by one. (And of course, Trump’s response to claims of “unconstitutional” are “Pfft.”)
Since those picked upon here are law firms, could they not argue this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point.
LikeLike
The problem is the constitutional ban on bills of attainder is an Article I restraint on Congress. But you raise an excellent point.
LikeLike
That strikes me as an omission based on the idea that only Congress can pass laws. Bills are by nature acts of Congress. The implication here is that Madison intended a pretty weak presidency as compared to the modern concept thereof.
Another indication of the founding father’s belief in a Congress as the place where laws originate is reflected in the refusal of presidential candidates to express their feelings on issues, telling the press that to state policy preference would be “electioneering,” a negative until Andrew Jackson brought his revolution.
LikeLike
Also good points, but I think there is no chance that courts construe what’s written as a Constitutional restraint on Congress to also apply to executive orders.
LikeLike
Roy, I thought you’d be interested to see these posts about the judge’s discussion of the bill-of-attainder issue in her decision striking down some Trump executive orders.
LikeLike
I expect the law firms to sue for damages.
I also expect that Columbia University will sue to recapture the $400 million that Trump suspended. If he can single out Columbia, he can use similar orders to punish or destroy other universities.
LikeLike
Man, this is sordid.
LikeLike
“There are words for such behavior: censorship. Fascist. Dictator. Thin-skinned. Authoritarian.”
Your words are a hell of lot more civil and diplomatic than my words. . .
. . . so I’ll leave it at that!
LikeLike
You had to know this was coming and so long as he has power it is going to get worse. Trump and his Congressional allies are out to remodel/remake American democracy into an autocracy and, like it or not, there are plenty of Americans who would find this satisfactory.
LikeLike
We are finding out how fragile our democracy and the rule of law are. Trump believes in neither. He believes only in what’s good for him.
LikeLike
Trump toady John Durham – the guy who improperly traveled with William Barr to Italy on “research” (thus showing his “independence” was non-existent) – already prosecuted Michael Sussmann on the most spurious of charges, so I am sure Trump expects the DOJ whom he considers employees of his firm to start proceedings on Elias.
If it is true that five right wing Justices have the anti-original intent, neo-fascist view that the Constitution really has no restraints on the president targeting his supposed “enemies” for punishment – but just wanted that restraint put on Congress but not the executive branch- then no doubt Trump will soon be shooting people on Fifth Avenue with the support of the Supreme Court.
First absurdity, then atrocity.
LikeLike
Law firms were scared away from representing Trump and his allies during Biden’s term; there are many news articles citing that fact – do your own research. This blog approved of that intimidation, never once condemning it. I condemn such intimidation in all cases.
There is good news today from CBS:
CBS’s Camilo Montoya-Galvez reported that during a trip to the US-Mexico border this week, he “did not see a single migrant or asylum-seeker” over the course of four hours.
“Typically, when you go to the border, you will see groups of people who are trying to cross into the US, but we did not see a single migrant,” he reported.
Like all far Left sites, this blog said that Congress needed to pass laws to control the border. Not true – all that was needed was a President willing to enforce existing laws.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/03/10/cbs_reporter_we_did_not_see_a_single_migrant_during_trip_to_border.html
LikeLike
No law firm was intimidated by Biden into not representing Trump.
Trump has a well-established reputation for not paying his bills. That’s why many law firms refused to represent him. I have never read of any intimidation by Biden.
Trump is famous for suing at the drop of a hat. He has been involved in more than 3,000 lawsuits. He always finds lawyers willing to take the chance about whether he will pay.
Biden never singled out any law firm for punishment.
Please cite evidence.
LikeLike
I think a lot of firms also chose not to represent Trump because (1) a critical mass of the partners really disliked Trump, and/or (2) they feared the reputational damage that would come from representing him. I know this was true of my firm.
LikeLike
Yes. But no one refused to represent him because Biden or the Justice Department intimidated them. That was the allegation to which I was responding.
LikeLike
Correct.
LikeLike
Years ago, American banks refused to lend money to Trump because of his multiple bankruptcies. Eventually his primary lender was Deutsche Bank, which got into trouble for money laundering.
LikeLike
This is just plain stupid. What else do you have?
Also, please explain how Diane Ravitch’s blog is a “far-left site.”
LikeLike
Anyone seen the stock market lately? Scary stuff. The biggest, computing chip subsidy driven, AI speculation driven, potential Trump tax break driven bubble is popping RIGHT NOW due to tariffs and cuts and such. Big change seems a’coming — quite possibly in the form of a depression. I believe that somewhere out there is an FDR 2.0 waiting in the wings. I hope.
LikeLike
A dystopian nightmare!!!
LikeLike
It’s now being reported that President Musk – the unelected billionaire chainsawing our government to dust – has been in regular contact with Putin for at least two years. But we’re in alliance with Russia and North Korea now so it’s ok. Are we winning yet MAGA?
LikeLike
Here’s a gift link to a good followup article about this important story.
https://wapo.st/4bOZI8x
LikeLike