In a move raising serious constitutional concerns, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders revoking security clearances and restricting federal access for two high-profile law firms—Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling—both of which have represented key political adversaries.
Perkins Coie, known for its past legal work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and Covington & Burling, which currently represents special counsel Jack Smith, have been directly targeted by Trump’s orders. These actions, according to legal scholars, could violate First Amendment protections and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.
Trump’s directives, which were issued without prior legal proceedings, bar Perkins Coie attorneys from federal buildings and revoke existing security clearances. A separate order against Covington & Burling specifically targeted two lawyers advising Smith, rather than applying a blanket revocation to the firm. Trump’s administration has also launched reviews to terminate federal contracts held by these firms and their clients, a move critics say is an unprecedented form of political retaliation.
Perkins Coie dismissed the order as “patently unlawful” and vowed to challenge it. Covington defended its representation of Smith, asserting that it operates in line with longstanding legal principles.
Legal experts argue that the orders could be seen as an abuse of executive power aimed at silencing opposition. Some have drawn comparisons to past government overreach cases, suggesting this could lead to drawn-out legal battles. The American Bar Association has also weighed in, warning that such actions threaten the integrity of legal representation and could deter firms from taking cases that challenge the administration.
Trump, who has frequently attacked Smith as part of a “witch hunt,” has framed the orders as a crackdown on “partisan actors” within the legal system. His critics, however, see them as another chapter in his ongoing campaign of retribution against institutions and individuals he perceives as threats.
With legal challenges looming, Trump’s crackdown on these firms sets the stage for a high-stakes battle over the limits of presidential power and the independence of the legal profession.
