Top law firm partners quit after secret Trump budget deal exposed
Top lawyers flee Paul Weiss after secret Trump bill drafting exposed
Trump issued Executive Order 14231 on Mar. 14, 2025, titled "Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss." The order suspended the firm's security clearances, barred lawyers from federal buildings, and directed agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with Paul Weiss clients. The White House cited the firm's representation of Jan. 6 defendants in civil suits and its employment of Mark Pomerantz, who investigated Trump for the Manhattan DA.
Key People
8BK
Brad Karp
Paul Weiss Chairman
Karp has led Paul Weiss since 2008. When Trump issued Executive Order 14231 targeting the firm on Mar. 14, 2025, Karp flew to Washington to negotiate. He struck a deal committing $40 million in pro bono services to Trump-selected causes in exchange for rescinding the order. Karp defended the settlement by telling staff the firm faced an existential crisis and would not survive a protracted dispute with the administration.
Donald Trump
President of the United States
Trump issued Executive Order 14231 on Mar. 14, 2025, suspending Paul Weiss security clearances and threatening to terminate government contracts with firm clients. The order cited the firm's representation of Jan. 6 defendants and association with Mark Pomerantz. On Mar. 20, Trump rescinded the order after Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono services, acknowledge Pomerantz's wrongdoing, and abandon DEI policies.
Mark Pomerantz
Former Paul Weiss Partner and Manhattan DA Special Prosecutor
Pomerantz was a Paul Weiss partner who joined the Manhattan DA's office in 2021 to investigate Trump for financial crimes. He resigned in 2022 after DA Alvin Bragg declined to indict Trump, publishing a letter saying there was evidence sufficient to establish Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Pomerantz returned to Paul Weiss in 2022. Trump's executive order cited Pomerantz's prosecution work as justification for targeting the firm.
KD
Karen Dunn
Paul Weiss Litigation Co-Chair
Dunn co-chaired Paul Weiss's litigation department and represented high-profile clients including Apple and Google. She was a key adviser to Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election. In May 2025, two months after the Trump deal, Dunn resigned from Paul Weiss along with partners Jeannie Rhee, William Isaacson, and Jessica Phillips to launch competing firm Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP.
JR
Jeannie Rhee
Paul Weiss Partner
Rhee was a Paul Weiss partner who previously served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. She resigned from Paul Weiss in May 2025 to co-found Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, becoming one of seven partners to leave the firm in protest of the Trump settlement.
Damian Williams
Former U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York
Williams served as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan before joining Paul Weiss. After the firm's deal with Trump, Williams left Paul Weiss to join Jenner & Block, a firm that fought Trump's executive orders in court rather than settling. His departure represented a high-profile defection from a firm that capitulated to the administration.
SB
Steven Banks
Head of Paul Weiss Pro Bono Practice
Banks led Paul Weiss's pro bono practice, which historically focused on civil rights, immigrant advocacy, and representing indigent defendants. He departed the firm in Apr. 2025, one month after the Trump deal committed $40 million in pro bono services to administration-selected causes. His resignation signaled ethical concerns about redirecting pro bono work to political priorities.
JJ
Jeh Johnson
Former Homeland Security Secretary and Paul Weiss Partner
Johnson served as Secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama from 2013 to 2017 before joining Paul Weiss. He announced his departure from the firm following the Trump settlement, joining the exodus of partners who objected to the firm's capitulation to executive pressure.
Claims & Perspectives
False
False
Paul Weiss secretly helped draft legal language for Trump Big Beautiful Bill while negotiating their settlement deal
No credible evidence supports this claim. The Paul Weiss settlement with Trump involved three documented commitments: (1) $40 million in pro bono services for veterans, combating antisemitism, and promoting justice system fairness, (2) acknowledging Mark Pomerantz alleged wrongdoing, and (3) abandoning diversity, equity, and inclusion policies [1][2]. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was drafted through Congress standard reconciliation process, passed the House on May 22 and Senate on Jun. 28, 2025, with no evidence of Paul Weiss involvement in legislative drafting [3]. Paul Weiss published client memos analyzing the enacted law, which is standard legal practice, not evidence of drafting participation. Congressional letters from Senators Blumenthal and Raskin investigating the Trump-Paul Weiss agreement make no mention of legislative drafting, focusing instead on the pro bono commitment, DEI policy abandonment, and acknowledgment of Pomerantz conduct.
False
Trump executive order against Paul Weiss was legally justified based on national security concerns about the firm employees
The executive order cited no legitimate national security justification. EO 14231 accused Paul Weiss of undermining the judicial process and destroying bedrock American principles based on the firm representation of Jan. 6 defendants in civil suits and employment of Mark Pomerantz, who investigated Trump for the Manhattan DA [1]. These are First Amendment-protected legal activities, not security threats. Senators Blumenthal and Raskin wrote that the order appears to violate constitutional protections for legal representation and represents retaliation against the firm for representing clients Trump dislikes [2]. Legal experts noted the order suspended security clearances and barred federal building access without due process, using national security authority to punish political opposition [3]. The fact that Trump immediately rescinded the order after Paul Weiss paid $40 million demonstrates it was a pressure tactic, not a genuine security measure.
False
The $40 million pro bono commitment represents genuine charitable work that would have happened anyway
The pro bono commitment was explicitly tied to rescinding the executive order, making it a coerced payment rather than voluntary charity. Trump announced the deal on Truth Social saying Paul Weiss will dedicate $40 million in pro bono services to administration priorities, and the executive order was rescinded the same day [1]. The causes—veterans services, combating antisemitism, promoting fairness in the justice system—were mutually agreed with the administration, not independently chosen by Paul Weiss [2]. Pro bono head Steven Banks resigned in Apr. 2025, suggesting the redirection of pro bono work was ethically problematic. 141 Paul Weiss alumni signed a protest letter calling the deal a capitulation that undermines the firm independence [3]. Paul Weiss historically focused pro bono work on civil rights, immigrant advocacy, and indigent defense—causes now subordinated to Trump administration priorities. Nine law firms collectively pledged nearly $1 billion in similar arrangements under executive pressure, demonstrating a systematic quid pro quo pattern.
False
Mark Pomerantz committed prosecutorial misconduct that justified Trump targeting of Paul Weiss
No court, bar association, or ethics body has found Pomerantz committed misconduct. Pomerantz served as special assistant DA investigating Trump business practices from Feb. 2021 to Feb. 2022 [1]. He resigned after Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg declined to seek an indictment, writing in his resignation letter that evidence was sufficient to establish Mr. Trump guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [1]. This was a professional opinion about prosecutorial strategy, not misconduct. Trump executive order accused Pomerantz of wrongdoing, but cited no specific violations of law or ethics rules [2]. Paul Weiss agreed in the settlement to acknowledge Pomerantz alleged wrongdoing, but legal experts note this violated attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by forcing the firm to repudiate a lawyer past work. Pomerantz issued a statement after the Paul Weiss settlement saying he had done nothing wrong in his role as a prosecutor [3]. The targeting represents political retaliation for investigating Trump, not accountability for genuine misconduct.
False
The Paul Weiss agreement is an isolated incident, not part of a broader pattern of government coercion against law firms
The Paul Weiss settlement is part of a systematic campaign targeting multiple law firms. Trump issued Executive Order 14230 against Perkins Coie before targeting Paul Weiss with EO 14231 [1]. Nine major law firms collectively agreed to nearly $1 billion in pro bono commitments under threat of executive action, including Paul Weiss ($40M), another firm ($125M), and a third ($100M) [2]. The pattern involves targeting firms that represented clients who sued the first Trump administration, investigated Trump finances, or employed lawyers who worked on Trump-related cases. Senators Blumenthal, Raskin, and Schiff launched investigations into multiple law firm agreements, sending letters to at least six firms questioning the legality and ethics of these settlements [3]. The Wikipedia article documenting Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration catalogs the systematic nature of this pressure campaign. This represents coordinated use of executive power to punish legal representation of political opponents, not an isolated business dispute.
Disputed
Disputed
Brad Karp had no choice but to settle because the executive order would have destroyed Paul Weiss financially
Karp claimed the firm faced an existential crisis and would not survive a protracted legal dispute [1], but legal experts dispute this inevitability. Critics argue Paul Weiss could have challenged the executive order in court on First Amendment, due process, and equal protection grounds with strong likelihood of success [2]. The firm has 1,000+ lawyers and $2+ billion in annual revenue, giving it resources to fight. Jenner & Block chose to sue Trump over similar threats rather than settle, demonstrating litigation was viable [3]. However, Karp fear of client defection had basis in reality—clients reportedly told the firm they would leave due to being persona non grata with the administration. Whether the firm genuinely faced destruction or whether capitulation was a business decision to preserve profitability remains contested. Seven partners resigned, suggesting internal disagreement about whether settlement was necessary.
What you can do
Monitor executive actions targeting legal representation
civic monitoring
Track executive orders and agency directives that target law firms or lawyers for representing specific clients or causes. This helps identify patterns of government retaliation against legal professionals and potential violations of attorney-client privilege or First Amendment rights.
Contact congressional oversight committees about law firm targeting
civic action
Senators Richard Blumenthal and Jamie Raskin are investigating the Trump administration pressure campaign against law firms. Contact them to support oversight efforts examining whether these agreements violate legal ethics rules, constitutional protections, or represent extortion under color of law.
Support legal ethics reforms preventing political interference
civic action
Contact your state bar association to advocate for stronger protections against government retaliation targeting lawyers for client representation. Push for ethics rules explicitly prohibiting law firms from altering pro bono priorities or abandoning clients due to executive pressure.