In the first weeks of Donald Trump's second term, a seismic shift rippled through the corridors of American power. Elite law firms—long considered bulwarks of the legal establishment—began, one by one, to capitulate to the president's demands. The turning point came when Paul Weiss, a storied firm that had once led the legal resistance against Trump, agreed to a deal that included $40 million in pro bono services and a rollback of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. In exchange, Trump rescinded an executive order that had threatened the firm's very existence. The surrender was swift, public, and deeply consequential.
This was not an isolated incident. Over the following weeks, at least five other major law firms—including Skadden, Arps, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher—struck similar deals with the administration, according to The New York Times and Reuters. The agreements came after Trump signed executive orders targeting firms that had represented plaintiffs in cases against him or employed lawyers he viewed as adversaries. The orders suspended security clearances for their attorneys, threatened government contracts, and opened the door to client reviews.
The Fall of Paul Weiss
Paul Weiss had been a symbol of resistance. In Trump's first term, the firm represented former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and filed lawsuits against the president's policies. It was a progressive stalwart, priding itself on standing up to executive overreach. But when Trump issued an executive order in 2025 targeting the firm, managing partner Brad Karp chose negotiation over confrontation.
According to the BBC, the deal included a commitment to provide $40 million in pro bono legal work supporting Trump-administration priorities, including veterans' initiatives and the future presidential library. The firm also agreed to abandon DEI programs and adopt merit-based hiring—a concession that critics called a betrayal of its values.
“They were powerful enough to resist, but they caved,” said one partner at a rival firm, echoing a sentiment that swept through the legal community.
A Wave of Surrenders
Paul Weiss was just the beginning. Soon, Skadden, Willkie Farr, and others followed suit, each seeking to avoid the crippling effects of an executive order. The Wall Street Journal dubbed it “The Week CEOs Bent the Knee to Trump,” noting that the trend extended beyond law firms to corporations, universities, and even media companies.
Trump's tactics were blunt: threaten legal clients, suspend security clearances, and demand loyalty. For law firms, the calculus was simple—fight and risk everything, or surrender and survive. Most chose survival.
What Trump Demanded
- Pro bono work aligned with administration priorities
- Elimination of DEI policies and initiatives
- Commitments to hire “in accordance with the law” (often interpreted as opposition to race-conscious hiring)
- Access to partnership decisions and client lists
The Backlash Inside Big Law
The deals roiled staffs and deepened industry rifts. Associates resigned in protest, some with scathing public statements. At Skadden, a senior associate quit, citing the firm's “craven capitulation.” At Willkie Farr, a group of partners departed for a rival firm that vowed to “actually stand up for the rule of law.” One associate condemned Willkie's principles as “now so deeply compromised” that staying was impossible.
The New Republic reported that law firms that caved to Trump suddenly began losing major clients. Corporate counsel, themselves wary of the administration's reach, started redirecting business to firms that had resisted—or to firms that had not yet faced the president's wrath. The reputational damage was immediate, and the financial consequences were mounting.
A Broader Institutional Retreat
The law firm surrenders were part of a larger pattern. Big tech companies continued to bend the knee, and universities like Harvard found themselves under direct attack. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump's demand for a $1 billion settlement from UCLA “extortion,” vowing to sue.
But the pushback was not universal. Former President Barack Obama publicly criticized companies and institutions that were cutting deals on the White House's terms. “We have capacity to take a stand,” Obama said at an event. “The question is whether we have the will.”
In a Guardian op-ed, researcher David Kirp coined the term “anticipatory noncompliance” to describe the phenomenon of institutions surrendering before any actual threat is made—a preemptive kneel that only emboldens the administration. “Stop bending the knee to Trump,” he wrote. “It's time to recognize that capitulation is the real risk.”
Voices of Resistance
Not everyone yielded. Judge Zia M. Faruqui, a Pakistani American magistrate judge, refused to dismiss a case against the Justice Department, earning him the title “The Judge Who Won't Bend the Knee.” Lawyers at some boutique firms vowed to take on Trump cases pro bono, and a wave of public interest litigation began.
Philanthropists and legal scholars urged institutions to prepare for the fight. According to The Guardian, a group of major donors warned that “capitulating to Trump” would only invite more attacks. “We need to step up,” one philanthropist said.
The Road Ahead
The long-term consequences of this capitulation remain unclear. On one hand, firms that surrendered may survive in the short term, preserving their clients and profits. On the other hand, they have forfeited the moral authority that once defined Big Law's role as a check on government power. As Rolling Stone noted, these institutions are “powerful enough to resist—but are caving anyway.”
For Trump, the strategy has been remarkably effective. By targeting a few high-profile firms, he has sent a chilling message to every lawyer, executive, and university president in America. But the backlash inside the legal profession suggests that the price of surrender may be higher than anticipated. Clients are voting with their feet, and many of the best and brightest lawyers are choosing firms that will stand up for the rule of law.
In the end, the story of Paul Weiss is not just about one firm's fall from grace. It is about the fragility of institutional resolve in the face of authoritarian pressure. As one associate wrote in a resignation letter: “If we cannot defend the rule of law from the people who seek to destroy it, then we are not lawyers at all—we are merely employees of the powerful.” The question now is whether enough institutions will heed that warning before it is too late.
