Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
President Trump issued an executive order targeting Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP for alleged misconduct and threats to national security.
The order directs a review of security clearances held by the firm's employees and Mark Pomerantz, mandates disclosure requirements for government contractors concerning business with Paul Weiss, and restricts government interaction with the firm.
The President cites alleged involvement in undermining the judicial process, racial discrimination, and actions taken against him by personnel from the firm as justification.
Arguments For
National Security: The order aims to protect national security by reviewing and potentially suspending security clearances held by Paul Weiss employees and limiting their access to government facilities and information. The rationale is that Paul Weiss's actions, as described in the order, pose a threat to national security.
Fairness and Equal Opportunity: The order seeks to address alleged racial discrimination within Paul Weiss, aligning federal benefits with the laws and policies of the United States that promote equality and oppose discrimination. The intended benefit is a more equitable distribution of federal resources.
Accountability: The order mandates disclosure requirements for government contractors regarding their dealings with Paul Weiss, aiming to increase transparency and accountability in government spending. By ensuring that taxpayer funds are not used to subsidize allegedly harmful activities, accountability is increased.
Protecting the Integrity of the Judicial Process: The order alleges that Paul Weiss has undermined the judicial process and acted against American interests. By taking action against Paul Weiss, the order aims to protect the integrity of the judicial system. The cited evidence includes specific examples regarding the lawsuits and representation in January 6th events and the actions of attorney Mark Pomerantz.
Implementation via Executive Order: The order is based on the president's authority under the Constitution and US laws to issue executive orders and direct actions from relevant agencies. The clear and direct instructions to the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and heads of executive agencies demonstrate a direct method of implementation.
Arguments Against
Overreach of Executive Power: Critics might argue that the order constitutes an overreach of executive power, potentially violating the separation of powers principle and due process rights of Paul Weiss employees. The actions taken might be deemed excessive without a full and fair judicial process.
Lack of Due Process: Suspending security clearances and limiting government interactions without a thorough investigation might violate the due process rights of Paul Weiss employees. This could lead to a fair process being substituted by the president's accusations.
Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The order could have a chilling effect on free speech, dissuading attorneys from representing unpopular or controversial clients for fear of government retribution. The threat of losing federal contracts or access may decrease attorneys' willingness to defend clients.
Implementation Challenges: Implementing the order might prove challenging due to legal complexities and procedural hurdles. Terminating contracts might face legal challenges and the processes for evaluating and reevaluating security clearances may be extensive.
Unintended Consequences: The order might have unintended consequences, for example, impacting access to justice for individuals unable to afford other legal representation. The absence of Paul Weiss's services, particularly pro bono ones, might lead to a deficit in access to legal aid for vulnerable people.
Section 1. Background.
Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles. Many have engaged in activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms, and degrade the quality of American elections. Additionally, they have sometimes done so on behalf of clients, pro bono_ ,_ or ostensibly “for the public good” — potentially depriving those who cannot otherwise afford the benefit of top legal talent the access to justice deserved by all. My Administration will no longer support taxpayer funds sponsoring such harm. My Administration has already taken action to address some of the significant risks and egregious conduct associated with law firms, and I have determined that similar action is necessary to end Government sponsorship of harmful activity by an additional law firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General. In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution. Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.
This section provides the rationale for the executive order, outlining concerns about the actions of global law firms, particularly Paul Weiss.
The order alleges that Paul Weiss has engaged in activities undermining the judicial process, threatening national security, and engaging in racial discrimination.
Specific examples are given, including a pro bono lawsuit tied to January 6th events and the alleged unethical conduct of attorney Mark Pomerantz.
The administration states its intent to prevent taxpayer funds from supporting these actions.
Sec. 2. Security Clearance Review.
(a) The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Paul Weiss and Mark Pomerantz, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest. (b) The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Paul Weiss. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.
This section addresses security concerns.
It directs the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to suspend security clearances held by Paul Weiss employees and Mark Pomerantz pending a review.
Additionally, it orders the Office of Management and Budget to identify and cease the provision of government goods and services to Paul Weiss.
Sec. 3. Contracting.
(a) To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, activities that are not aligned with American interests, including racial discrimination, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Paul Weiss and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract. (b) The heads of all agencies shall review all contracts with Paul Weiss or with entities that disclose doing business with Paul Weiss under subsection (a) of this section. To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall: (i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Paul Weiss has been hired to perform any service; (ii) otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, all agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Paul Weiss or with entities that do business with Paul Weiss effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.
This section focuses on government contracting.
It requires government contractors to disclose any business dealings with Paul Weiss and directs agencies to review existing contracts.
Agencies are instructed to terminate contracts where Paul Weiss is involved and to align future funding decisions with what is considered the interests of the US, referencing a prior executive order.
A 30-day reporting deadline is set for contract assessments.
Sec. 4. Racial Discrimination.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the action authorized by section 4 of Executive Order 14230 of March 6, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP).
This section clarifies that the current order does not limit the actions authorized in a previous executive order dealing with Perkins Coie LLP, suggesting a similar approach to addressing risks from multiple law firms.
Sec. 5. Personnel.
(a) The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Paul Weiss when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States. In addition, the heads of all agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Paul Weiss employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States. (b) Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Paul Weiss, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.
This section outlines personnel restrictions.
It directs agencies to limit access of Paul Weiss employees to government buildings and interactions of government officials with Paul Weiss employees to protect national security.
Hiring of Paul Weiss employees is also restricted unless a waiver is granted.
Sec. 6. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This section contains general provisions.
It states that the order does not affect existing legal authority of agencies, is subject to available funding, and does not create any legally enforceable rights.