Trumps Adversarial Actions Against Law Firms and Universities

This posting is inspired from my recent meal-time conversations with several new THD residents who were previously active in University Teaching and Research as their Profession prior to their retirement.      

Following his 2024 election, Donald Trump took unprecedented adversarial actions against specific law firms and universities, primarily through executive orders and funding threats

. The policies, which began in early 2025, have been widely condemned by legal and academic organizations and are facing challenges in court. Some of the organizations targeted have capitulated to the administration's demands, while others have resisted. 

Actions targeting law firms

Since February 2025, the Trump administration has issued a series of executive orders (EOs) and memorandums targeting major law firms. The orders are seen as retribution for the firms' representation of political opponents, past government service by their attorneys, and involvement in cases that drew the administration's disapproval. 

Key adversarial actions include:

• Targeting of specific firms: EOs specifically targeted firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, citing their past work related to matters such as the Russia investigation and the January 6th Capitol attack.
• Punitive sanctions: The EOs included punitive measures, such as terminating government contracts, restricting firms' access to federal buildings, and suspending the security clearances of some lawyers.
• Pressuring firms into deals: In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the administration has pressured some firms to make concessions. Paul Weiss, for instance, agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes aligned with the administration. Other firms, including Skadden and Kirkland & Ellis, have made similar deals.
• A "chilling effect" on the legal profession: Critics, including the American Bar Association, argue these tactics have a "chilling effect," intimidating firms from representing clients the administration disfavors and undermining the rule of law. Some firms have reportedly scaled back their pro bono work in controversial areas. 

Actions targeting universities

The Trump administration has launched a broad campaign to reshape higher education, using funding threats and legal investigations to compel universities to adopt policies aligned with the administration's agenda. 

Key adversarial actions include:

• Targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs: A January 2025 executive order instructed federal agencies to terminate DEI programs at universities receiving federal funding. Institutions that do not comply face the loss of federal money.
• Weaponizing civil rights investigations: The administration has used the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to investigate dozens of universities for alleged antisemitism and DEI-related practices. In March 2025, it cut $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University and froze billions from Harvard, alleging violations of federal law.
• Influencing academic policy: The administration's demands extend beyond funding to influence university operations, admissions, and curricula. Some universities have entered agreements with the White House to resolve investigations, while others, like Harvard, have sued.
• Restricting international students: The administration has revoked student visas for foreign nationals involved in protests and attempted to ban international students from attending certain institutions, though some of these efforts have been challenged in court.
• Accreditation reform: In April 2025, an EO directed the overhaul of the higher education accreditation system, empowering the Education Secretary to hold accreditors accountable for schools that do not meet the administration's standards. 

Responses to the policies

• Legal challenges: Several law firms and universities, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Harvard, have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's executive actions. In several cases, federal judges have temporarily blocked the EOs. The American Bar Association has also sued the administration over its actions targeting law firms.
• Concessions and concerns: Some targeted institutions have made concessions to the administration, fearing the financial and operational consequences of further adversarial action. This has raised concerns about academic freedom and due process.
• Widespread condemnation: The policies have faced broad condemnation from various groups, including academic organizations, legal scholars, and civil rights advocates, who argue the actions undermine core constitutional principles and academic freedom. 
• Personal Note: I came to the US in 1960 as a Graduate Student from 
• the Philippines. After My Ph.D. graduation in Pharmaceutical Chemistry,
•  I decided to stay/live here in the US.     
• Finally, Did you know that..... 
  
  
  
• The Philippines’ national dish, adobo, isn’t really Spanish at all?
  
  While the word adobo comes from the Spanish adobar (“to marinate”), the technique of stewing meat in vinegar and salt was already being practiced by Filipinos long before colonization. This method wasn’t just for flavor—it was a natural way to preserve food in the tropical climate.
  Historians also note that Chinese traders influenced its development by introducing soy sauce, which later blended with vinegar to create the adobo we know today. So while Spain gave the dish its name, the recipe is a true Filipino original with deep pre-colonial and Asian roots.