In a stunning escalation of his campaign against the legal profession, former President Donald Trump signed a new Executive Order today targeting powerhouse litigation firm Susman Godfrey. The move continues a troubling pattern of politically motivated actions against elite Biglaw firms—and signals that the administration’s retaliatory efforts are far from over.
Much like the earlier executive orders that crippled access and smeared reputations, this latest decree aims to strip Susman attorneys of their ability to enter federal buildings, among other chilling restrictions. But even more disturbing than the order itself were the comments made during the signing ceremony.
“Another Five Firms”: Trump and Miller Signal the War Isn’t Over
Standing beside Trump, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller bragged that “another five” firms are already in the administration’s crosshairs. He went on to boast about the sweetheart deals firms have brokered to escape political targeting—deals that total hundreds of millions in pro bono services, concessions, and reputation management.
So far, at least four major firms—Paul, Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr—have inked agreements totaling $340 million. But Miller offered a more ominous estimate: the true value of these deals is approaching $600–700 million, and “we’re going to be close to a billion soon.”
That staggering number implies that even more firms are preparing to bend the knee to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm—raising fundamental questions about legal ethics, executive overreach, and the independence of the legal profession.
Why Was Susman Godfrey Targeted?
So what triggered this latest assault?
According to Miller, Susman Godfrey is “very involved in the election misconduct.” That’s a misleading claim at best. In reality, Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems in its high-profile defamation suit against Fox News—a case that resulted in a $787.5 million settlement and significantly boosted the firm’s visibility, revenue, and ranking across multiple Biglaw performance metrics.
But Susman’s real “offense” may be its legal advocacy in other politically sensitive matters. The firm has been active in challenging the Trump administration’s previous executive orders:
- Signed the amicus brief defending Perkins Coie, another targeted firm
- Represented a bipartisan coalition of national security, intelligence, and foreign policy experts opposing the orders
- Remained outspoken in defense of constitutional protections and the rule of law
In other words, Susman Godfrey has dared to push back—and is now paying the price.
Susman Godfrey Responds: “We Will Fight This Unconstitutional Order”
Despite the political pressure, Susman Godfrey isn’t backing down.
In a firm-issued statement, a spokesperson said:
“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”
This defiant stance sets Susman apart from firms that have opted to settle, grovel, or quietly comply. In doing so, the firm has become both a legal and symbolic battleground in a growing fight for the future of the legal industry’s independence.
Biglaw’s Integrity Is Being Stress-Tested
The Trump administration’s aggressive targeting of elite firms—and its willingness to use access to the federal system as leverage—has sent shockwaves through the legal world.
Some firms are surrendering preemptively, choosing short-term protection over long-term principles. Others, like Susman, are standing their ground—risking executive ire to preserve constitutional norms and ethical obligations.
This isn’t just about Susman or the handful of firms already named. It’s a systemic moment for the profession.
As Miller’s comments made clear, this is far from over. And the billion-dollar price tag he teased? That’s the going rate to buy silence, compliance, or both.
Meta Description:
