Firms That Caved to Trump Are Helping Him Break the Law, Dems Warn

A group of Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from nine major law firms that struck deals with Donald Trump’s administration to avoid being targeted by the president’s fury.

In a series of letters Thursday, 16 Democratic lawmakers warned the managing partners of several large law firms that the agreements they’d made with the Trump administration—offering millions of dollars in pro bono work on issues that support the president’s agenda, among other concessions—were unenforceable and potentially violated federal and state laws.

The 16 lawmakers that sent the letters included Representatives Dave Min of California, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Becca Balint of Vermont. They warned that by issuing executive orders targeting certain law firms, the Trump administration had used “coercive and illegal measures to target certain law firms and threaten their ability to represent and retain their clients.” In total, the law firms had pledged a whopping $940 million in pro bono work to the Trump administration.

The letters alleged that Trump’s scheme to blackmail firms into abolishing their DEI practices and cough up millions in free work could potentially violate federal laws against bribery, defrauding the public, and even racketeering. The deals could also potentially violate the Hobbs Act, according to lawmakers, which “prohibits obstruction, delay, or affecting commerce by extortion under color of official right.”

The deals potentially violated state laws and rules of professional conduct too, the lawmakers said.

Not every firm that struck a deal, or received a letter, had been openly targeted by the Trump administration. Several had preemptively approached the government to make concessions, according to statements from the firms. The lawmakers warned that the deals would have a “chilling effect” on “the availability of legal services for those clients and matters targeted by the Trump administration.”

The nine law firms that received letters were Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Milbank LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; and Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

In the letters, each firm was asked a series of questions about the details of their individual deals with the Trump administration, and how exactly they’d come about.

For example, Paul Weiss, the first law firm to bow to Trump, had agreed to acknowledge that one of its attorneys, Mark Pomerantz, had committed wrongdoing, according to the White House. Trump had targeted Pomerantz for his efforts to build a case against the president when Pomerantz served at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—not illegal in the slightest. The lawmakers asked Paul Weiss to explain specifically what alleged “wrongdoing” Pomerantz had committed. Like many of the other firms, Paul Weiss had also offered millions in free legal services and revoked their hiring practices that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Other questions were the same for every firm. “Outside observers have also stated that these agreements represent a ‘Sword of Damocles,’ with a risk that the administration will again threaten to target firms with Executive Orders if they do not again yield to the President’s demands,” one question read, asking what the firm planned to do to “ensure that the administration will not be able to require more from the firm beyond the provisions currently in place?”

Earlier this week, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut penned letters to five major law firms that they accused of being “complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law.”

Trump thinks that Russia not completely colonizing Ukraine is a concession on the path to peace.

“Mr. President … what concessions has Russia offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace?” a reporter asked Trump, during a meeting with the Norwegian prime minister in the Oval Office on Thursday.

“Stopping the war. Stopping taking the whole country. Pretty big concession,” Trump replied dryly.

Promising to not invade a neighboring country is not a concession, especially not when you’ve already bombed said neighbor for over two years. Just hours before, Trump had resorted to Truth Social to beg Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop bombing Ukraine, after the worst assault on Kyiv in months.

The Trump administration continues to reveal that the so-called peace deal it wants to broker between Russia and Ukraine is just a way to force the latter to give up more land and resources. It’s not a deal, it’s not a ceasefire, it’s a shakedown.

Russian propagandists were practically giddy as they celebrated top U.S. officials—including Donald Trump—bending to the Kremlin’s demands.

“No one could have imagined we would live to see the day where the correct answer about to whom Crimea belongs would come from the president of the United States, and he will not only give it but will also teach the president of Ukraine what this correct answer is,” said business daily Kommersant writer Sergey Strokan on the Russian broadcast program 60 Minutes Wednesday night.

“April 23, 2025, can be confidently written into textbooks on modern history as a special date,” Strokan said. “It changed many things.”

State Secretary Marco Rubio spontaneously pulled out of Ukraine peace talks Wednesday after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy plainly rejected a U.S.-backed deal that would permanently hand over Crimea, an internationally recognized portion of Ukraine that has been under Russian occupation since 2014, to Russia.

“Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea,” Zelenskiy said at a press conference in Kyiv Tuesday. “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our Constitution.”

But Trump’s response to the land debate was seen as a massive win for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his allies. In a post on Truth Social Wednesday, Trump claimed that the territory was “lost years ago” and “and is not even a point of discussion” in the peace talks. Trump further threatened that Zelenskiy should give up Crimea or risk “losing the whole Country,” and said that the Ukrainian leader’s rejection of the peace deal would “do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field.’”

The Russian talking heads interpreted that message in just one way: that the U.S. had rescinded its international military dominance and aligned itself with Moscow, practically signing Ukraine’s death warrant and that of Europe’s protection along with it.

“The United States may withdraw its entire military contingent from Europe and remove American tactical nuclear weapons from the European NATO bases,” predicted military expert Igor Korotchenko. “We will see a totally new political reality, when Europe will be left one-on-one with Russia.”

Another state-backed TV show, The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, saw its host “prancing and grinning” as the U.S. cowered in submission, according to The Daily Beast.

Allowing Russia to keep Crimea is an incredible reversal of long-standing U.S. policy—and comes as a new approach for the Trump administration. In 2018, Trump’s former State Secretary Mike Pompeo called Russia to end its annexation of the Black Sea peninsula.

But in a White House press conference Thursday, Trump couldn’t muster a coherent explanation for the switch-up, only further deflecting responsibility for the ongoing conflict.

“This isn’t my war. This is Biden’s war,” Trump said. Earlier on Thursday—nearly 100 days into his second term—Trump had resorted to begging Putin to end the violence.

During the press briefing, Trump further claimed that Russia had offered major concessions in a possible peace deal. Those concessions, however, amounted to “stopping taking the whole country.”

“Pretty big concession,” Trump added.

Donald Trump is targeting a massive Democratic fundraising tool in an upcoming presidential memorandum banning foreign donations in U.S. elections, according to reporting from Politico.

Donations platform ActBlue, which almost all Democratic candidates use in both primary and general elections, has often been criticized by Republicans—without evidence—for what they see as fraudulent donations from foreign actors. Republican Representative Bryan Steil ordered ActBlue to turn over its records in October and found nothing of the sort. There was actually evidence of ActBlue’s new program for automatic rejections of donations from foreign nationals.

ActBlue raised $400 million in the first three months of 2025, and Trump’s order would effectively choke off donations to the Democratic Party.

“Nothing will deter or interrupt ActBlue’s mission and work to enable millions of Americans to participate in our democracy. There is an ongoing and persistent effort to weaken the confidence of the American people in what’s possible. This is the next version of ‘the big lie,’” ActBlue CEO and President Regina Wallace-Jones wrote in an email on Wednesday. “More than 28 million Americans participate in our democracy through our platform. We are not going to sit back idly and let their voices be silenced.… It is time for us to unify—as Americans—and create a powerful blue wall to fight against the creeping despotism of the Right, and to win back power in Washington D.C and the halls of government across the country.”

Trump’s presidential memorandum has yet to be released.

For anyone still doubting whether Donald Trump is contemplating a third term, consider that the president is currently selling “Trump 2028” hats.

The red caps were spotted on the online Trump store retailing for $50 a pop.

“Make a statement with this Made in America Trump 2028 hat. Fully embroidered with a snap closure in the back, this will become your new go-to hat,” the item description reads.

Trump has been continually suggesting the idea of running for a third term since he was on the campaign trail last year, but last month, the president insisted he was actually “not joking” about staying in power.  

During a phone call with NBC News’s Kristin Welker, the president said that he was actually very serious about potentially circumventing the Constitution in order to lead the country for another four years after his second term ends.

“No, no I’m not joking. I’m not joking,” the president said during a call in which he agreed with Welker that one such plan to keep him in office involved having Vice President JD Vance front the next Republican presidential ticket with Trump as his number two—roles that they would then switch once back in office.

“That’s one. But there are others too. There are others,” Trump said, refusing to clarify what the other plans are.

Another seemingly far-fetched idea, which involves altering the Constitution in order to keep Trump in power, would require the consent of most of the country. But that’s only if the president intends to lean on traditional methods, such as an election, to stay in the Oval Office.

As outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, any such change requires at least two-thirds of the Senate and the House to agree on the modification, with that change then requiring ratification by a minimum of three-quarters of states in the nation.

A second approach to repealing the term-limiting amendment could be via a Constitutional Convention, though two-thirds of states would need to support the motion to have one at all, and any proposed changes to an amendment would still require ratification by three-fourths of the states.