Next on the Block: President Trump Issues an Executive Order -- "Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block"

 

Pix Credit here; Poulenc, Dialogues of the Carmelites

 

We have been following the pathways of Presidential action against specified law firms in the United States.  See here, here, and here.  By Executive Order dated 25 March 2025, entitled Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, the President added the law firm of Jenner and Bock to the list. 

The rationale remains the same, and continues to embed some rationalizations that ought to give paise:

My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.  Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.  Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients.  Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.

One notes here only that conduct detrimental to the interest of the United States with legal consequences, traditionally, have been specified in law, and there is ample law applicable to negative impact where the political bodies, in their wisdom, have so provided. These should be vigorously enforced. Nonetheless, and as irritating as they might seem to Presidents (and Mr. Trump is neither the first nor will he be the last to be extremely irritated in this way), conduct detrimental to political agendas, even those of elected officials, are fair game in this Republic. And the notion of "interest of the United States" unless specified with some particularity in law has policy implications, certainly, and drives decision making hopefully,  but in this Republic are political stances aligned with the political engagements of elected officials and the people, represented in principle as policy and then reduced in its specifics to law. Law, though is not inscribed in or as the body of an elected official, no matter how august. Whatever the "significance" of the risks to American interests of particular value to elected officials that do not constitute lawbreaking, those officials can do what they have done since the founding of the Republic--use the authority of their office to convince the people of the righteousness of their version of that interest. To the extent that this conduct reduces the trust of officials in these law firms, they are free to decline to hire them.To the extent that such conduct may touch on discretionary actions--such as security clearances, then officials can move to make their case that such security clearances ought to be revoked--in the ways provided by law. To the extent that officials decide to have nothing to do with them, that is fine too, but only to the extent that these do not unlawfully encroach on the rights of all lawyers for equal access to the state. If the law is inconveniently narrow to the interests the officials seek to advance, then they are free, and better positioned than most, to have them changed. If they can. With respect to the rest--they are political judgments that are measured as a function of the political line of the duly elected officials. That makes those articulations of interest important and a substantial factor in decision making, but it does not give the the weight of law.  Still, that authority is something great indeed, under law, and that ought to count for something, certainly. But unless irritating conduct or political activity (even in and through courts) constitute a violation of law, it cannot serve as a basis for sanctions under law. In markets--yes; with respect to trust, yes. Thus to the extent that Mr. Trump seeks to call out Jenner and Block for conduct that Mr. Trump believes is irresponsible and not in the interests of the state as he sees it, that is his right as a political matter. And market discipline is available; but in the absence of law breaking, all one has here is politics, American stye for the 21st century.

Pix credit here

With respect to a judgment that what they do is highly detrimental to the nation--that is an opinion and judgment as worthy of valuing as any other held by the people of this Republic--and subject to the test of politics. Jenner and Block has chosen to engage in that great Punch and Judy show that is American politics in the shape it has now taken. They have done so to great effect in the legal marketplace, and in that other market place of influence and driving politics though law. Neither they nor their supporters are hardly in a position to bray about hurt feelings or effects on their political position as measured through income streams projections into high end client markets when they engage in the hurly-burly of politics through courts and then are challenged for their politics and their tactics. That law firms use pro bono cases to advance political agendas is both true enough and of little effect on the legality of their choices to engage in politics in this way; though again it may affect the judgment of officials who may choose to avoid hiring them. That lawyers take positions that hurt their clients is a matter for clients to decide and the disciplinary organs of the ethics and malpractice rules to sort out. Those j'accuse, like much of Section 1 of this Executive Order makes for good politics (and as a political indictment as good a venue for its projection into the political discourse as any other--and with the same legal effect). But it does little less with legal consequence. President Trump can trumpet his his opinions about the actions and politics of people and institutions whose activities he can try to convince the polity are a danger to the Republic; certainly Mr. Biden spent a number of years trying to do just that with Mr. Trump as his object. But that ought to be the extent of it. Unless we are witnessing a replay of the phenomenological action oriented trajectories of the prior administration but now only in mirror reverse. That would be unfortunate indeed. But that is a story for another day.

The specific sins of Jenner and Block are then specified:

Jenner & Block LLP (Jenner) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan “lawfare,” and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.  For example, Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.  Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based “targets.”

In addition, Jenner was “thrilled” to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.  Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court.  The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities.

There is one significant value to these actions by the President--they at least provide warning to those affected and a different kind of warning to those not yet named.  It reminds one, a little of the way that the proscription list emerged in the later Roman Republic during the leadership of Sulla:

Pix credit here

Sulla now began to make blood flow, and he filled the city with deaths without number or limit; many persons were murdered on grounds of private enmity, who had never had anything to do with Sulla, but he consented to their death to please his adherents. At last a young man, Caius Metellus, had the boldness to ask Sulla in the Senate-house, when there would be an end to these miseries, and how far he would proceed before they could hope to see them stop. "We are not deprecating," he said, "your vengeance against those whom you have determined to put out of the way, but we entreat you to relieve from uncertainty those whom you have determined to spare." Sulla replied, that he had not yet determined whom he would spare. "Tell us then," said Metellus, "whom you intend to punish." Sulla said that he would. (Plutach, Life of Sulla, ¶ 31).

The President, apparently, has also listened. The text of the Presidential executive Order follows below.

 

 

Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block

Executive Orders

March 25, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Background.  My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.  Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.  Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients.  Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.

Jenner & Block LLP (Jenner) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan “lawfare,” and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.  For example, Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders.  Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based “targets.”

In addition, Jenner was “thrilled” to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.  Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court.  The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities. 

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 Jenner 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 Jenner.  The heads of agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.

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 Jenner and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.

(b)  The heads of agencies shall review all contracts with Jenner or with entities that disclose doing business with Jenner 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 Jenner has been hired to perform any service; and

(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, agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Jenner or with entities that do business with Jenner effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.

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).  

Sec. 5.  Personnel.  (a)  The heads of agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Jenner 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 agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Jenner employees, including but not limited to Andrew Weissmann, 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 Jenner, including but not limited to Andrew Weissmann, 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.

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.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    March 25, 2025.