Trump Pursues Retribution Against Law Firms, Media, Universities/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Donald Trump has launched a sweeping campaign of political retribution targeting law firms, universities, media outlets, and former prosecutors. Using executive orders and funding threats, he has compelled institutions to comply or face severe penalties. While some entities have fought back in court, others have struck deals to protect their interests.
Trump’s Retaliation Campaign: Quick Looks
- Trump targets law firms tied to past investigations against him.
- Executive orders issued to cut federal contracts, revoke security clearances.
- Some firms and universities yielded under financial pressure.
- Others, like WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, filed lawsuits.
- Trump sees retribution as fulfilling a campaign promise.
- Columbia University changed policies to avoid losing federal funding.
- Media outlets, including ABC News and Meta, settled lawsuits.
- Free speech advocates warn of threats to legal and academic independence.
Deep Look: Trump’s Expanding Campaign of Political Retribution
In the early months of his latest term, President Donald Trump has aggressively moved to fulfill a campaign vow: to seek retribution against perceived enemies. Former prosecutors, major law firms, elite universities, media companies, and tech giants have all become targets of a sweeping and deeply controversial campaign that leverages federal authority in ways that have stunned critics and emboldened supporters.
The strategy was previewed during Trump’s 2023 campaign, when he declared, “I am your retribution.” What that meant became clearer as his administration issued executive orders, stripped security clearances, canceled federal contracts, and launched investigations aimed at punishing dissent and past scrutiny.
Law Firms in the Crosshairs
Among the first targets was Paul Weiss, a prestigious law firm whose past attorney had investigated Trump. In response to a White House executive order aimed at stripping the firm’s attorneys of federal security clearances and access, Paul Weiss struck a deal. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in legal services to administration causes in exchange for having the order rescinded.
Paul Weiss’s chairman described the situation as an “existential crisis,” noting in an internal email that the firm faced client departures and a growing sense it was “persona non grata” with the administration. Despite initial plans to sue, the firm chose to comply, prompting backlash from within the legal community.
Over 140 alumni signed a letter criticizing the firm’s capitulation, calling it “a craven surrender” and likening the climate to the McCarthy era.
Other firms soon found themselves under similar pressure. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreed to $100 million in pro bono services and changes to hiring practices. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, by contrast, refused to comply and sued to block executive orders. A federal judge suspended key parts of those orders, calling them dangerous to the legal profession’s independence.
Trump’s administration also moved against Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie, citing their affiliations with special counsels and Democratic causes. In Perkins Coie’s case, the firm had represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and was linked to the controversial opposition research dossier on Trump.
Universities Under Federal Pressure
Elite universities have also been drawn into the retribution campaign. After disruptive protests at Columbia University tied to the Israel-Hamas conflict, Trump’s administration pulled $400 million in federal funding. It demanded policy changes including stricter protest rules, a redefinition of antisemitism, and departmental oversight.
Faced with financial loss and escalating scrutiny, Columbia’s interim president announced the adoption of nearly all White House demands. Civil liberties advocates denounced the move. “Columbia’s capitulation endangers academic freedom and campus expression nationwide,” warned the New York Civil Liberties Union.
Trump’s administration also suspended $175 million in funding to the University of Pennsylvania, citing unresolved cultural and policy disputes — including a controversy over a transgender swimmer who no longer attends.
Media and Tech Companies Feel the Heat
Trump’s campaign of retribution extended to the media and Silicon Valley. ABC News paid $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation suit involving anchor George Stephanopoulos’ incorrect statement about Trump’s civil case with E. Jean Carroll.
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, paid $25 million to resolve a lawsuit stemming from Trump’s suspension from the platform after the January 6 Capitol riot. The deal followed a private meeting between CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Additionally, the administration revoked Associated Press access to the presidential press pool after the outlet refused to follow a controversial executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico. AP has filed a lawsuit to challenge the action.
Trump also attempted to defund and dismantle Voice of America, firing over 1,200 staff before a federal judge blocked the move, preserving the agency’s operations — at least temporarily.
Political and Legal Divide
Critics, including former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb, have labeled the tactics extortion. “The more of them that cave, the more extortion that that invites,” Cobb warned. Legal scholars and former prosecutors have voiced alarm over the administration’s use of federal authority to punish opposition.
Conversely, supporters argue that Trump is within his constitutional rights. Former U.S. Attorney Jay Town defended the administration’s power to decide which entities deserve federal contracts and security clearance access. “It’s as simple as that,” he stated.
Despite legal setbacks, Trump has expressed satisfaction with the progress of his campaign, pointing to concessions from law firms and institutions.
“They’re just saying, ‘Where do I sign?’ Nobody can believe it,” he remarked.
A Chilling Effect on American Institutions
Trump’s retribution strategy has raised serious concerns about the independence of U.S. institutions. Critics argue that the pressure on law firms, universities, and media outlets undermines democratic norms and sets a dangerous precedent.
What remains to be seen is how long institutions will resist — or comply. As more entities face financial threats or legal jeopardy, the cost of dissent under Trump’s administration may continue to rise.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.