A wave of heavyweight legal voices from the corporate world has stepped into the ring, blasting Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at major U.S. law firms as a direct attack on constitutional freedoms—and a dangerous precedent for American businesses.
Sixty-seven current and former general counsels from Fortune 500 giants like Microsoft, Intel, Eli Lilly, and more filed a legal brief Tuesday, backing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against the Trump administration. At the heart of the clash: an executive order that revoked Perkins Coie attorneys’ access to federal buildings and officials, while also dangling the threat of canceled federal contracts for the firm’s clients.
The brief doesn’t mince words. It calls the orders a “hijacking” of the attorney-client relationship, accusing the Trump administration of trying to coerce political loyalty through economic punishment.
“This isn’t just about punishing one law firm,” the brief argues. “It’s about chilling the right of every company to choose its legal counsel without fear of political retribution. The message is clear: Hire lawyers the president doesn’t like, and your business pays the price.”
Trump didn’t stop with Perkins Coie. Similar orders have targeted WilmerHale and Jenner & Block—both of which, like Perkins, secured temporary court victories blocking the orders.
Backing this legal pushback are some of the most seasoned corporate legal minds in the country. Signers of the brief include Ivan Fong (former legal head at 3M, now general counsel at Medtronic), Dorian Daley (former top lawyer at Oracle), and Randal Milch (ex-general counsel of Verizon), among others.
The White House responded in characteristically combative fashion, with a spokesperson saying Trump is focused on ending what he views as the “weaponization of Big Law” against Americans with certain political views.
But the legal community isn’t buying it. Just four days before the corporate counsel brief, more than 500 law firms filed their own statement backing Perkins Coie. Although most top-tier firms didn’t sign that particular filing, the momentum behind Perkins’ legal challenge is growing.
Some targeted firms have managed to dodge executive orders by cutting deals—Paul Weiss reached an agreement with Trump to withdraw the order against it. Milbank, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Skadden Arps also struck accords with the administration before any formal action was taken. These deals involved pledging millions in pro bono legal work for White House-favored causes and committing to certain internal employment practices.
Critics see a pattern: firms that oppose or investigate Trump, or embrace diversity in hiring, are singled out. The executive orders have frequently referenced not only legal advocacy but also workplace diversity as grounds for punishment.
The brief’s underlying warning is stark: business leaders must now calculate not only a law firm’s legal chops, but whether it’s politically “safe” in the eyes of the White House.
“If left unchecked,” the brief concludes, “these actions could reshape the relationship between government and private enterprise—and fracture the independence of the legal system itself.”
