03-26-2025

Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14244, issued on March 21, 2025, revokes a prior executive order that had imposed sanctions on the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. The revocation came after the firm reportedly agreed to several policy changes, including ending "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) policies in favor of merit-based hiring, adopting political neutrality in client selection, and committing to $40 million in pro bono legal services for causes supported by the administration.

Money: The primary financial component is Paul Weiss's commitment to provide the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during the President's term. The order itself does not appropriate any government funds but reverses the financial and contractual restrictions imposed by the previous order on the law firm.

Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. However, it signals a de-escalation in a high-profile conflict between the administration and a major private-sector legal institution, potentially impacting the broader legal and corporate landscape's approach to diversity policies and political neutrality.

Status: Signed and published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14244 formally rescinds Executive Order 14237, which was titled "Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss." The original order, signed on March 14, 2025, had accused the firm of undermining the judicial process and had imposed significant sanctions, including suspending security clearances for its employees and restricting their access to federal buildings.

Core Provisions:

  • Revocation: Section 2 of the order explicitly states: "I hereby revoke Executive Order 14237 of March 14, 2025."
  • Stated Justification: The order asserts that Paul Weiss has undergone a "remarkable change of course." This includes acknowledging the alleged wrongdoing of former partner Mark Pomerantz and agreeing to significant policy changes.
  • Policy Changes by Paul Weiss: The order lists several commitments made by the law firm, including:
    • Adopting political neutrality in client selection and attorney hiring.
    • Committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, replacing "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) policies.
    • Pledging $40 million in pro bono legal services to support causes like assisting veterans, promoting fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The White House presented this executive order as a positive development resulting from the law firm's remedial actions.

  1. To acknowledge and reward the "remarkable change of course" by Paul Weiss.
  2. To encourage the legal profession to focus its energy on unifying the nation and strengthening communities and businesses.
  3. To end government sponsorship of activities deemed harmful and inconsistent with American principles, as was the stated purpose of the original, now-revoked order.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Legal Services, Government Contracting.
Timeline: The revocation was effective March 21, 2025. The pro bono services are pledged for the duration of the President's current term in office.
Scope: The order specifically targets and lifts restrictions on the global law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and its employees.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Pomerantz Investigation and Departure (2022-2023):

Mark Pomerantz, a former partner at Paul Weiss, was hired by the Manhattan District Attorney's office to investigate former President Donald Trump's finances. He later resigned from the investigation, stating in his resignation letter his belief that Donald Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations." Pomerantz rejoined Paul Weiss in April 2022 and later published a book arguing for Trump's prosecution. In 2023, he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when subpoenaed to testify before Congress about his role in the investigation.

Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms (March 2025):

The Trump administration initiated a series of executive orders targeting law firms it viewed as politically antagonistic. This included actions against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. On March 14, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14237, "Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss." The order accused the firm of undermining the judicial process, discriminating through DEI policies, and cited the actions of its former partner, Mark Pomerantz. The order suspended security clearances for Paul Weiss employees, limited their access to federal buildings, and directed agencies to terminate government contracts with the firm.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • De-escalation via Agreement: The revocation appears to be the result of a direct agreement between the White House and the law firm's chairman, Brad Karp. The firm's commitment to significant policy changes and a $40 million pro bono pledge provided the administration with a public victory, allowing it to rescind the order.
  • Legal and Political Pressure: The original executive order against Paul Weiss, and a similar one against Perkins Coie, faced immediate legal challenges. A federal judge had already blocked parts of the order against Perkins Coie, finding it likely unconstitutional. The revocation of the Paul Weiss order preempted a similar, protracted legal battle.
  • "De-Politicization" Campaign: The White House framed the original order and its subsequent revocation as part of a broader push to "de-politicize" major American institutions and root out what it describes as ideological bias.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This executive order directly affects a specific private law firm and its employees, with little to no immediate impact on most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • There are no direct, tangible benefits for the average citizen from this specific executive order.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • None for the general public. For the legal industry, it may set a precedent for how firms navigate political pressure and structure their diversity and pro bono programs.

Long-term:

  • The conflict and its resolution could influence how corporations and large professional firms engage with politically sensitive issues and structure their internal policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Employees, partners, and clients of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, who are no longer subject to federal sanctions.
Secondary Groups: Other major law firms and corporations, who may feel pressure to align their policies with the administration's priorities to avoid similar targeting.
Regional Impact: The impact is concentrated in the legal and government contracting sectors, primarily in cities with a large presence of federal agencies and major law firms, like Washington D.C. and New York.

Bottom Line: This executive order is a resolution to a specific dispute between the White House and a single company, with its most significant impact being the precedent it may set for corporate-government relations.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "A Victory for Fairness and Merit"

Core Stance: The administration and its supporters view this as a successful outcome, forcing a powerful institution to abandon "woke" policies and reaffirm principles of political neutrality and merit.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Praised Paul Weiss for acknowledging the alleged "wrongdoing" of Mark Pomerantz and committing to reform.
  • ✓ Hailed the firm's decision to drop DEI policies in favor of merit-based hiring as a return to American values.
  • ✓ The $40 million pro bono commitment is seen as a tangible contribution to administration-supported causes.

Legislative Strategy: The strategy was to use the credible threat of executive action (sanctions, contract termination) to force a private entity to change its internal policies, a strategy that in this case resulted in a negotiated settlement.

Democratic Position: "Extortion and Abuse of Power"

Core Stance: Opponents and critics characterize the initial executive order as an unprecedented abuse of presidential power and an attempt to use the government to punish political adversaries.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ They would support the revocation itself, as it ends what they see as an unconstitutional action.
  • ⚠️ Concerns remain about the chilling effect such actions have on the legal profession and the independence of private businesses.
  • ✗ They strongly oppose the use of executive orders to target specific individuals or private companies for punitive reasons, viewing it as a form of political retribution.

Legislative Strategy: The primary recourse for opponents was through the judicial system, challenging the constitutionality of the original order. Political opposition was voiced through public statements and media, but legislative options to block such an executive order are limited.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

The initial Executive Order 14237 raised significant constitutional questions, which Executive Order 14244 (the revocation) now renders moot for this specific case. However, the precedent of the original order remains contentious.

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to issue executive orders is not explicitly defined in the Constitution but is understood as an inherent aspect of executive power derived from Article II. This power is generally used to manage the operations of the executive branch.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

[Bill of Attainder]: The most serious legal question raised by the original order was whether it constituted a "bill of attainder"—a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a judicial trial. The Constitution explicitly forbids bills of attainder in Article I, Section 9. While this prohibition is in the article concerning Congress, legal scholars argue it can apply to executive actions that are punitive and specific in nature. A federal judge suggested a similar order against another law firm likely violated the Constitution.
[Separation of Powers]: Critics argued that by targeting a specific firm for its perceived political leanings and the actions of a former partner, the executive branch was encroaching on the judicial branch's power to determine guilt and impose punishment.
[Federalism]: This action does not directly implicate federalism as it involves the federal government's relationship with a private entity, not a conflict with state powers.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The original Executive Order 14237 was highly vulnerable to legal challenges. Had it not been revoked, Paul Weiss would have likely sued, arguing the order was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a violation of due process, and an infringement on First Amendment rights of association. The successful temporary blocking of a similar order against the firm Perkins Coie indicates such a challenge would have had a strong chance of success.

Your Action Options

Since Executive Order 14244 revokes the contentious prior order, the immediate policy fight is over. The action options below are tailored to the broader precedent set by this episode.

TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S STRATEGY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's efforts to hold powerful institutions accountable and ensure federal resources do not support entities with discriminatory DEI policies."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to express support for oversight of politically-motivated legal actions and corporate DEI programs.
  • Join an Organization: Find and support conservative or libertarian public interest law firms and advocacy groups that challenge DEI initiatives and "weaponization" of the justice system.

TO OPPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION'S STRATEGY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I am concerned about the President using executive orders to punish private companies. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to defend the rule of law and the separation of powers."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper condemning the use of executive power to target perceived political opponents in the private sector.
  • Join an Organization: Support civil liberties organizations like the ACLU or legal ethics watchdog groups that oppose the politicization of the justice system and defend against governmental overreach.