aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14246, titled "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block," directs federal agencies to suspend security clearances for employees of the law firm Jenner & Block, cease providing government resources to the firm, review and potentially terminate all federal contracts with them, and restrict their employees' access to federal buildings and government engagement.

Money: The financial impact is not specified with a CBO score, but it calls for a review and potential termination of all federal contracts with Jenner & Block. The order also directs contracting agencies to require government contractors to disclose any business they conduct with the firm.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American is minimal, as the order primarily targets a specific private law firm and its relationship with the federal government. However, it sets a precedent for executive actions against private companies based on their alleged political activities and associations.

Status: This Executive Order was signed and issued on March 25, 2025, and was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2025. A court subsequently ruled on May 23, 2025, that the executive order violated the First Amendment.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive order implements a series of punitive measures against the law firm Jenner & Block LLP based on allegations that the firm and its employees have engaged in conduct detrimental to American interests. The order asserts that the firm has pursued partisan political goals, supported "attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex," and backed the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal immigration.

Core Provisions:

Security Clearance Suspension: The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence must immediately suspend active security clearances for all individuals at Jenner & Block, pending a review.
Cessation of Government Services: The Office of Management and Budget must identify all government property and services provided to Jenner & Block, and agencies must cease providing them.
Contract Review and Termination: Government agencies must require federal contractors to disclose any business with Jenner & Block. Agencies are directed to review all contracts with the firm or entities doing business with them and take steps to terminate those contracts.
Restricted Access: Federal agencies are to issue guidance limiting access for Jenner & Block employees to federal buildings and limiting engagement between government employees and the firm's employees, specifically naming former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
Hiring Restrictions: Agency officials are to refrain from hiring Jenner & Block employees, including Andrew Weissmann, without a special waiver.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to address "significant risks associated with law firms...that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests."

To prevent individuals and firms engaged in "egregious conduct" from having access to national secrets.
To ensure federal taxpayer funds and contracts do not subsidize activities deemed harmful to the nation, such as alleged racial discrimination and partisan "lawfare."
To counter the firm's alleged political activities, including its rehiring of Andrew Weissmann, who is described as having a career "rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power."

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Legal, Government Contracting.
Timeline: The order was issued on March 25, 2025, with directives for immediate action by federal agencies.
Scope: The order specifically targets a single private entity, Jenner & Block LLP, and its employees.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Post-Watergate Era (1970s-2000s):

Following the Watergate scandal, a norm of Justice Department independence was established to prevent the use of federal law enforcement for political purposes. This era emphasized the separation of the executive branch's political interests from the impartial administration of justice.

The Mueller Investigation and its Aftermath (2017-2020s):

The investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference in the 2016 election became a highly polarizing event. Andrew Weissmann, a lead prosecutor on Mueller's team, became a focal point of criticism for his assertive prosecutorial tactics. Weissmann later wrote a book, "Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation," detailing his belief that the investigation could have been more aggressive, particularly concerning a full financial investigation of the president and issuing a subpoena for presidential testimony. After his government service, Weissmann rejoined Jenner & Block as a partner.

Rise of "Lawfare" Accusations (2020s):

The term "lawfare" entered the political lexicon to describe the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize a political opponent. The executive order explicitly accuses Jenner & Block of condoning "partisan 'lawfare'". This follows a pattern of accusing law firms of engaging in politically motivated legal action, as seen in a similar executive order (14230) targeting Perkins Coie LLP.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

Retribution Campaign: This executive order is part of a broader series of actions described as a "retribution" and "revenge" campaign against political opponents and critics of the administration.
Targeting Perceived Adversaries: The order continues a pattern of using executive power to target specific law firms that have represented clients in opposition to the administration or have employed individuals deemed to be political adversaries.
Precedent of Similar Orders: This order directly follows a similar action against another law firm, Perkins Coie, indicating a strategic use of executive authority to punish and deter legal and political opposition. The order against Jenner & Block specifically cites the firm's association with Andrew Weissmann as a key justification.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects a specific law firm and its employees, as well as companies that do business with both the firm and the federal government.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

For supporters of the administration, this action could be seen as fulfilling a promise to hold accountable those perceived as political enemies and to stop taxpayer money from flowing to firms engaged in activities they oppose.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (Immediate):

Companies with federal contracts that also use Jenner & Block for legal services may face a sudden need to find new legal representation or risk their government contracts.
The executive order could create a chilling effect on law firms considering taking on controversial pro bono cases or representing clients in opposition to the administration.

Long-term:

This action could lead to a more politicized environment where private companies are targeted by the executive branch for their associations or the clients they represent.
It could normalize the use of executive orders to punish specific individuals and entities, bypassing the legislative and judicial processes.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Employees of Jenner & Block, the firm's clients, and companies with federal contracts that also do business with the firm.
Secondary Groups: The legal profession as a whole, which may face pressure regarding client representation and pro bono activities. Advocacy groups and individuals involved in causes opposed by the administration.
Regional Impact: The impact will be most felt in cities with a significant federal government presence and where major law firms like Jenner & Block operate, such as Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York.

Bottom Line: While most citizens will not be directly impacted, this executive order represents a significant use of presidential power to penalize a private company for its perceived political stance and associations, which could have broader implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government"

Core Stance: The administration's supporters would likely argue that this executive order is a necessary step to de-politicize the justice system and stop the flow of taxpayer money to firms that work against American interests.

Their Arguments:

✓ The order holds accountable a law firm that allegedly engages in partisan "lawfare" and employs individuals like Andrew Weissmann, who is accused of abusing his power during the Mueller investigation.
✓ It stops federal funds from subsidizing a firm that allegedly discriminates based on race through its diversity initiatives and undermines election integrity.
✗ (Potential internal disagreement) Some Republicans might express concern over the precedent of using executive power to target specific private businesses, viewing it as an overreach of government authority.

Legislative Strategy: The strategy is one of direct executive action, bypassing Congress to achieve its objectives. The administration is using its authority over federal agencies and contracting to exert pressure on its target.

Democratic Position: "An Unconstitutional Abuse of Power"

Core Stance: Democrats and opponents of the order would likely condemn it as a vindictive and unconstitutional attack on a private entity for political reasons.

Their Arguments:

✓ They would defend Jenner & Block's right to represent its clients and engage in pro bono work, which has included fighting for free and fair elections and protecting constitutional rights.
⚠️ They would warn that such actions create a chilling effect, intimidating lawyers and firms from taking on cases or causes that are opposed by the sitting administration.
✗ They would argue the order is a blatant violation of the separation of powers and the Bill of Attainder Clause, as it singles out and punishes a specific entity without a judicial trial.

Legislative Strategy: Opponents would likely pursue legal challenges in court, arguing the executive order exceeds presidential authority and is unconstitutional. They would also use public platforms to frame the action as an authoritarian move to silence dissent.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✗ Unconstitutional

Basis of Authority:

The executive order does not cite a specific constitutional clause or statute, instead referring broadly to the "authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America." Executive orders are generally rooted in the President's power under Article II of the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." However, this power is not unlimited and cannot be used to create new laws or punish citizens without due process.

Constitutional Implications:

[Bill of Attainder]: The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress and states from passing any "Bill of Attainder," which is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. This executive order functions precisely as a bill of attainder by naming a specific private firm, Jenner & Block, and inflicting punishment by suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, and restricting access to government facilities. Although the clause explicitly mentions legislative acts, its principles are deeply rooted in the separation of powers, preventing any branch from acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

[Separation of Powers]: The order directs executive agencies to perform functions typically reserved for the judiciary. It makes a determination of guilt ("engages in conduct detrimental to critical American interests") and imposes a punishment without the safeguards of a judicial trial.

[First Amendment]: The order targets a firm based on its associations, the clients it represents, and its alleged political stances. This raises significant First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech and association. A federal court has already ruled that a similar executive order targeting another law firm violated the First Amendment.

Potential Legal Challenges:

This executive order is highly vulnerable to legal challenges. Jenner & Block would have strong grounds to sue, arguing that the order is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a violation of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, and an infringement on their First Amendment rights of speech and association. Indeed, in a similar case involving an executive order against the law firm Paul, Weiss, the order was rescinded after the firm agreed to certain conditions, and the order against Jenner & Block was struck down by a court as a First Amendment violation.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Contact the White House: Express your support for the President's actions to hold law firms accountable. You can use the White House comment line or website.
Share on Social Media: Share news articles and commentary that align with the administration's justification for the executive order.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining why you believe this executive order is a necessary step to combat "lawfare" and protect national interests.
Join an Organization: Find and support conservative or government accountability groups that have spoken out against the politicization of the legal system.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to publicly condemn Executive Order 14246 as an unconstitutional abuse of power and a violation of the rule of law."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Detailed Email: Contact your elected representatives and the leadership of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to demand congressional oversight of this executive action.
Join an Organization: Support organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the rule of law, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Brennan Center for Justice, which often litigate against government overreach.