Donald Trump on Thursday signed yet another executive order targeting a law firm linked to attorneys who have investigated him.
The order against WilmerHale contained some of the same provisions that Trump previously used on other firms, like the cancellation of government contracts and the suspension of its employees’ security clearances.
Additionally, the order prohibited employees of the firm from entering federal buildings and communicating with government employees. Government agencies wouldn’t be allowed to hire them, either.
ADVERTISEMENT
The order revolved around the fact that WilmerHale employed Robert Mueller, the special counsel tasked with investigating the links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. Upon being tasked for that role by Trump’s own deputy attorney general, Mueller resigned from the firm. He rejoined years later once the investigation was complete, and retired in 2021.
“Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government, yet WilmerHale claimed he ‘embodies the highest value of our firm and profession,‘” the order argued.
The document also claimed that WilmerHale “abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”
Other Trump executive orders, like the one earlier this week against Jenner & Block, have also taken issue with firms’ pro bono work.
However, Trump was able to secure substantial pro bono work from another law firm he had a grudge against—retracting an executive order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison after an agreement had been struck for the firm to give the administration $40 million in free work.
WilmerHale, in a statement, gave no indication that it would follow Paul, Weiss in striking any sort of deal.
“We look forward to pursuing all appropriate remedies to this unlawful order,” it said in part, The New York Times reported.
Any legal action remains to be seen.
Another firm on the receiving end of an executive order, Perkins Coie, has sued the administration.
“Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients,” the suit stated. “Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”
The Justice Department has unsuccessfully tried to get the judge handling the matter, Beryl Howell, to remove herself from the case.
“Every litigating party deserves a fair and impartial hearing to determine both what the material facts are and how the law best applies to those facts,” Howell wrote in a decision Wednesday. “That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party — not even those with the power and prestige of the president of the United States or a federal agency — to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.”
