Democratic lawmakers are intensifying their scrutiny of major law firms, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, over their pro bono work for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Concerns have been raised that these arrangements may contravene federal law, prompting a series of inquiries into the nature and legality of these agreements.
In April 2025, a group of Democratic legislators, led by Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Jamie Raskin, initiated an investigation into the interactions between prominent U.S. law firms and the Trump administration. The focus was on whether these firms had been coerced into providing substantial pro bono services to avoid punitive executive orders. Notably, firms such as Milbank, Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher reportedly made concessions, including financial commitments and policy changes, to align with the administration’s agenda. Lawmakers expressed concern that these actions indicated unlawful coercion by President Trump to align firms with his political objectives. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/democratic-lawmakers-press-paul-weiss-other-firms-trump-deals-2025-04-07/?utm_source=openai))
Further developments in July 2025 revealed that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may have played a role in facilitating these agreements. Democratic leaders, including Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Richard Blumenthal, pressed the EEOC for information regarding its involvement in what they termed a “shakedown” of major law firms. The lawmakers alleged that the EEOC was used to intimidate and coerce firms into providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono services for causes approved by President Trump. ([democrats-judiciary.house.gov](https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-members-raskin-blumenthal-and-scott-expand-investigation-into-trump-administration-s-law-firm-shakedown-and-demand-answers-from-eeoc?utm_source=openai))
In response to these allegations, the law firms involved have maintained that their agreements were legal and ethical. In May 2025, representatives from the nine firms that agreed to provide pro bono work for the president’s preferred causes, including de-emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, sent letters to Congress defending their commitments. For instance, Simpson Thacher stated, “Your suggestion that the Firm may have violated federal law, state law, and rules of professional conduct in entering into the agreements is wholly without merit.” ([min.house.gov](https://min.house.gov/media/in-the-news/big-law-firms-double-down-their-trump-deals-letters-congress?utm_source=openai))
Despite these assurances, internal dissent has emerged within some firms. In June 2025, Kathleen Rubenstein, executive director of the Skadden Foundation, resigned following Skadden’s decision to offer $100 million in pro bono legal services to former President Trump. Rubenstein cited concerns that the firm’s actions conflicted with the foundation’s mission to support public interest law and assist individuals living in poverty. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/skadden-foundation-leader-resigns-following-trump-deal-2025-06-04/?utm_source=openai))
The controversy has also led to broader implications for the legal profession. A Reuters investigation in July 2025 highlighted how President Trump’s executive orders targeting U.S. law firms have reshaped the legal landscape, weakening pro bono legal support for underserved communities. Traditionally, elite law firms offered free legal aid to nonprofits, especially in cases involving immigration, civil rights, and government accountability. However, due to fear of political retaliation, many firms have reduced or avoided pro bono work that may conflict with the administration’s policy agenda. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trumps-war-big-law-leads-firms-retreat-pro-bono-work-underdogs-2025-07-31/?utm_source=openai))
As the investigation continues, Democratic lawmakers have requested further information from the involved firms to assess the legality and ethical implications of their agreements with the Trump administration. The outcome of this inquiry may have significant ramifications for the independence of the legal profession and the provision of pro bono services in the United States.