Trump is shredding the First Amendment under the guise of ‘national security’
President Donald Trump is going after a pair of major law firms — and attacking the First Amendment in the process.
Trump issued an executive order on Thursday that took aim at Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton when she ran against Trump in 2016. Notably, Perkins Coie hired a research firm that produced the infamous “Steele dossier,” which alleged the president colluded with Russia to steal the election. Trump’s order aims to strip the firm’s attorneys of their security clearances and asks the government to review all contracts with the firm with the intention of terminating any they can.
Trump issued a similar memorandum last month, going after some attorneys at the law firm of Covington & Burling. The firm is home to former special counsel Jack Smith, who led the prosecution of Trump in cases related to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol and the president’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. (Both cases were dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election.) The memorandum aims to strip security clearances from Peter Koski, a partner at the firm based in Washington, DC, and any other individuals who helped Smith while he served as special counsel.
Canceled contracts promise to cost the firms revenue while stripping security clearances hurts them by putting certain areas of federal business off-limits. But the issue is far bigger than harm to a pair of well-off law firms.
Legal experts say that Trump’s executive actions challenge the First Amendment right to free expression — and aim to send a signal to would-be opponents from well beyond just the legal profession. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)
“No one is going to cry for a big law firm,” said Katie Fallow, deputy director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “But the idea of the government punishing a private entity based on the political positions it’s taken, or the speech it’s engaged in, or who it’s associated with, is terrible from a free speech and association standpoint.” [Continue reading…]