A Reuters investigation reveals that President Trump’s aggressive campaign against major U.S. law firms is chilling pro bono work and weakening legal defenses for vulnerable populations.
In a stark break from precedent, Trump has issued executive orders targeting law firms for taking on cases related to immigration, LGBTQ rights, and challenges to his administration. The result? Dozens of top firms have scaled back or abandoned litigation that might place them in opposition to the administration.
This retreat has created a legal void. Civil rights groups like the Texas Civil Rights Project say they are struggling to find support, with former partners either refusing to help or demanding anonymity. “It’s a fundamental reordering,” said one pro bono director.
The intimidation goes beyond rhetoric. Law firms that previously challenged Trump’s executive actions have been blacklisted from federal buildings, warned about losing access to officials, and even had their corporate clients threatened. In response, several firms struck deals with the administration, pledging nearly $1 billion in free legal services aligned with Trump’s agenda—on issues like veterans’ services and combating antisemitism.
Nearly all of the top 50 U.S. law firms have since removed or altered references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on their websites. Many also revised descriptions of their pro bono work, omitting contentious areas like immigration and racial justice.
The American Bar Association has long viewed pro bono work as a professional obligation, and firms have used it to attract top talent and boost public image. But as Trump redefines legal loyalty through executive pressure and conservative legal activism, this core pillar of the U.S. legal profession is under siege.
Some firms have resisted. Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and others won court victories against Trump’s orders. Still, the broader trend is clear: advocacy groups report a sharp drop in available legal help, especially in immigration and civil rights cases. Former Paul Weiss pro bono chief Steven Banks put it bluntly: “Win or lose in court, the actions of the president are accomplishing their goal.”
At its core, this moment reflects a broader democratic threat: when lawyers fear political retribution for defending the rule of law, the legal profession’s ability to serve as a check on government power is deeply compromised.