Last updated: April 11, 2025
On March 21, BigLaw firm Paul Weiss struck a deal with the Trump administration in exchange for an executive order targeting them to be lifted. This capitulation to Trump undermines the rule of law and will invite future authoritarian moves by the administration. As RDP’s Henry Burke wrote, “Appeasement will only lead to certain destruction.”
But Paul Weiss is not alone in its submission to Trump. Other institutions have succumbed to Trump’s pressure, and each time they do, it further transforms the power of the presidency into a tool for corruption and coercion. We’re tracking them on this page.
If you have a tip for an organization who cowed to Trump’s demands that is not included on the list, please let us know! You can email us at [email protected].
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (4/11/25)
- Cadwalader, one of the oldest law firms in the U.S., agreed to a deal with the Trump administration, reportedly to avoid becoming a target of an executive order. Todd Blanche, the current Deputy Attorney General, was formerly a partner at Cadwalader.
- Cadwalader agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services to Trump-supported causes, represent clients regardless of political affiliations, and commit to merit based hiring practices. Cadwalader also agreed not to engage in any DEI programs.
- Statement from the White House, posted on Truth Social: “President Trump and his Administration have entered into an agreement with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, which voiced their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.”
Allen Overy Shearman Sterling; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; Kirkland & Ellis (4/11/25)
- Several large U.S. law firms agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to avoid an executive order targeting their practices.
- The four BigLaw firms agreed to provide a combined $500 million in pro bono services to Trump-supported causes, represent clients regardless of political affiliation, to commit to merit based hiring practices. The firms also agreed to end their DEI programs.
- Statement from the White House, posted on Truth Social: “President Trump and his Administration have entered into an agreement with these long established firms, which have affirmed their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.”
Kirkland & Ellis (4/4/25)
- The Wall Street Journal reported that Kirkland, the largest U.S. law firm by revenue, is in talks with the Trump administration to reach a deal that would save them from an executive order similar to the ones targeting other BigLaw firms.
Milbank LLP (4/2/25)
- Milbank, one of the largest U.S. law firms, agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to shield themselves from becoming a target of an executive order. Milbank recently hired Neal Katyal, a vocal critic of Trump, former acting solicitor general. He was part of the lawsuit against Trump’s firing of the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Katyal is also the author of a book making the case for Trump’s impeachment.
- Milbank agreed to provide $100 in pro bono services to Trump-supported causes, represent clients regardless of political affiliations, and commit to merit based hiring practices. Milbank also agreed not to engage in any DEI programs.
- Statement from the White House, posted on Truth Social: “Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.”
Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (4/1/25)
- Willkie is the third BigLaw firm to agree to a deal with the Trump administration in order to avoid the repercussions of some future executive order targeting their practice. Earlier this year, Willkie hired Dough Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris. Willkie also represented Georgia election workers in a defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani, a leading figure in Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
- Willkie agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services for Trump-supported causes as well as committing to merit-based hiring and promotion, and representing clients regardless of political affiliation.
- Statement from the White House, posted on Truth Social: “Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.”
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagehr & Flom (3/28/25)
- Skadden Arps, another BigLaw firm, preemptively surrendered to the Trump administration by striking a deal to avoid becoming a target of executive orders aimed at other law firms. The agreement comes after Elon Musk posted on X ordering the firm to stop their litigation against Dinesh D’Souza. Trump pardoned D’Souza in 2018, four years after he pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations.
- Skadden agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services for Trump-supported causes, committed to “merit-based hiring, promotion and retention,” and to represent clients regardless of political affiliation.
- Trump: “This was essentially a settlement-we appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table.”
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (3/21/25)
- Paul Weiss, one of the nation’s largest law firms, capitulated to an unconstitutional executive order that would have severely altered the firm’s relationship with the federal government. The executive order was part of a broader attack on law firms that participated in criminal prosecutions against Trump in the lead up to the 2024 election. Mark Pomerantz, a lawyer in the Manhattan DA’s office who worked on investigations into Trump, had previously worked at Paul Weiss for 20 years.
- The executive order suspended security clearances for Paul Weiss lawyers, prevented the firm’s employees from entering government buildings, and blocked Paul Weiss employees from obtaining jobs in the federal government.
- The executive order was rescinded after Paul Weiss agreed to represent clients regardless of political affiliation and do $40 million of pro bono work for the Trump-supported causes and pledged to end any “DEI” at the firm (the last point being inserted into the agreement post-negotiation, seemingly a means of asserting further dominance over Paul Weiss’ Brad Karp).
- Legal professionals were quick to condemn Paul Weiss’ surrender to Trump’s demands, calling the move cowardly and questioning the well-resourced firm’s motivations, especially as other law firms targeted by Trump have chosen to fight (and win) in court.
Columbia University (3/21/25)
- Columbia University agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration, including empowering internal campus law enforcement to arrest “agitators” and centralizing disciplinary power under the university president, in order to restore federal funding the Trump administration had cut.
- The Trump administration cut off $400 million in federal grants for supposed inaction by the school’s administration during campus protests last year. Officials from other U.S. universities and colleges say Columbia’s acquiescence threatens academia’s independence and student free speech.
Facebook (1/29/25)
- Meta paid $25 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump alleging censorship and First Amendment violations after suspending his social media accounts after the January 6th Capitol attack.
- The settlement came after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $1 million to Trump’s 2024 inaugural fund and attended the inauguration ceremony on January 20th. Meta had been fighting against the lawsuit since it was brought in 2021.
- Meta’s abrupt settlement has drawn suspicion, and critics have likened it to a legal bribe and a pledge of fealty to Trump.
ABC News (12/16/24)
- ABC paid Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit, despite legal experts citing strong First Amendment protections and Supreme Court precedent that cast doubt on the strength of the case.
- The decision to settle came from Disney, which owns ABC News. Disney feared that a protracted legal battle with Trump could damage its reputation and business interests, and was concerned that Trump would escalate attacks against the company in retaliation.
- Coupled with Trump’s history of vilifying the mainstream media, ABC’s settlement creates a chilling effect on the press’ desire and ability to scrutinize public officials. Some critics have claimed the settlement functioned as a quasi-bribe.