President Trump has issued two Executive Orders (EOs) punishing the law firms Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie.
The most recent was today, against Perkins Coie. Grok explains:
On February 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order suspending security clearances for employees of Covington & Burling who provided pro bono assistance to Jack Smith during his investigations into Trump. This order also directed a review of federal contracts with the firm, signalling an intent to limit its interactions with the government. "... Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts..."
Similarly, on March 6, 2025, Trump signed another executive order targeting Perkins Coie, suspending security clearances for its employees and restricting the firm's business with federal contractors, citing its diversity practices and past political activities, including its work for Clinton in 2016. "Addressing the Risks from Perkins Coie LLP".
Some are worried. Is this just revenge? Does it create a dangerous precedent?
A couple of quick thoughts from a non-lawyer, non-expert, non-American... just an observer:
First, I'll do some Whataboutism. It was not the Trump admin that started this whole "dangerous precedent" gig. It was the Clinton/Obama/Biden Industrial-Political Complex. Think the overturning of the filibuster -- the "nuclear option" -- in voting for Supreme Court justices. Which came back to bite the Dems in the case of the Neil Gorsuch appointment. Think of Biden defying the Supreme Court, openly, in the case of Student loans. Or Hillary and the whole Russia Collusion Hoax. With the attendant lawfare against Trump, as ex-president and as president candidate. All these broke previous practice. Created precedent. So... if we're worried about Trump, then Whatbout the Dems?
Before Trump was inaugurated on 20th January, there was much discussion about the right thing to do about all this Lawfare, once in power. Two main lines, which I'll summarise in biblical terms:
(a). "Turn the other cheek". "Forgive them, oh Lord, for they know not what they do".
(b). "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth".
Proponents of (a) say it's best to take the high ground. Don't be suckered into taking revenge, because it brings you down to their level. Just do your thing and get on with it.
Proponents of (b) say that following (a) is just a recipe for losing, for noble defeat. You will lose the election, but feel virtuous about it. You've got to hit them hard with their tactics, or they'll just do more of them.
An in-between position is this: don't seek revenge. But do seek justice. Do punish those who have committed clear crimes. Not Lawfare, but The Law. As the Dems have repeatedly said: "No-one is above the law".
As to the EOs above, I've read only the latter, the one against Perkins Coie. Basically it removes their access to the Federal government. That is, it removes Perkins Coie's Federal security clearances. And it tells other departments of the Federal government not to deal with them.
My thoughts on this are that it's entirely appropriate for the federal government to decide which companies it deals with and who has access to its information. This happens all the time.
According to Grok there are some 435,000 legal firms in the United States. Of these: "without specific federal data (which isn’t fully disclosed), a rough estimate might suggest that between 1,000 and 5,000 law firms have some form of access to federal information...".
Which works out at at between 0.2% and 1.1% of all legal firms in the US have access to federal information. Cutting Perkins Coie's access is hardly unique, or a reason for concern about "precedent", given that 99% already don't have that access.
What did Perkins Coie do to deserve the ire of Trump and his EO? They're deep in the Democrat Demi-world, from Hillary and the Steele dossier, to Fusion GPS, to Crossfire Hurricane, to the attempts to overturn Trump's election victory, to Obama & the Obama Boys to running the Biden Admin Lawfare, repeated impeachments, attempts to deny Trump even the right to campaign... finally to Jack Smith's manic pursuit of the Mar-a-Lago documents case (while the more serious case of Joe Biden's illegally held documents, was acknowledged but dropped). Not to mention their support of the illegal, improper political attacks on Trump by the likes of AG Letitia James, DA Alvin Bragg & Co. Judiciary Committee on ending the weaponisation of the DOJ.
ADDED: I forgot to mention that the EO is also after Perkins Coie for "racist policies" carried out under DEI provisions. I'm fully onboard with that one. DEI is indeed racist. The quicker done with the better, and if Perkins is a front-runner in being made an example, so be it.
