President Donald Trump has instructed the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose penalties on lawyers and law firms involved in what he described as “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious” legal action against the US government.

Advertisment

In a memo released by the White House on Friday, Trump said, “Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

Also read: Donald Trump signs order to 'eliminate' US Education Department

Immigration lawyers in the spotlight

Advertisment

The directive, titled Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court, particularly targeted immigration lawyers. Trump claimed they “frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security and deceive the immigration authorities and courts into granting them undeserved relief.”

He ordered acting Attorney General Bondi to investigate the behaviour of lawyers and firms that have filed lawsuits against the federal government over the last eight years. Trump also called on both Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to prioritise enforcement of rules around attorney conduct and discipline.

Also read: Donald Trump hails 'good relations' with India, points out 'the only problem'

Advertisment

Targeting prominent law firms

In recent weeks, Trump has taken executive actions against major legal firms he associates with his political opponents, including efforts to revoke their government contracts and security clearances.

One of the firms singled out was Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Trump had initially demanded a review of their contracts and clearances but withdrew the order after the firm agreed to provide pro bono legal work for the administration.

Also read: Trump breaks precedent, strips Biden, Harris, and others of security clearances

Another firm, Perkins Coie, previously linked to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, launched legal action after Trump issued an order banning its lawyers from entering federal buildings. US District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Barack Obama, temporarily blocked part of that order.

Covington & Burling, which offers legal services to former special counsel Jack Smith in a personal capacity, was also targeted by the president.

Trump defends his actions

Defending his actions on Friday, Trump told reporters, “Well, the law firms all want to make deals. You mean the law firms that we’re going after, that went after me for four years ruthlessly, violently, illegally? Are those the law firms you’re talking about?”

“They’re not babies. They’re very sophisticated people,” he added. “Those law firms did bad things. Bad things. They went after me for years.”

Also read: Alien Enemies Act: The 18th-century wartime law Trump used for deportation but failed, explained

Frustration over court orders

According to sources close to the matter, Trump has been frustrated in recent days by a series of temporary court orders that have slowed his political agenda. One such case challenged the legality of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting efforts, branding them as potentially unconstitutional.

However, the case causing the most frustration for the White House involves Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members without court proceedings.

In that case, US District Judge James Boasberg ordered that any ongoing deportation flights be recalled and temporarily halted further removals under the Act.

The administration failed to return two flights, arguing the judge’s instructions were not issued in writing. This prompted Boasberg to question whether the government had ignored a court order.

“You felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t in the written order. That’s your first argument?” Boasberg asked during a recent hearing. “The idea that because my written order was pithier so it could be disregarded, that’s one heck of a stretch,” Boasberg added.

The White House insists it did not break the law. At the core of the dispute is the administration’s view that the judge had no authority to hear the case, a position that overlooks the established role of federal courts in reviewing how laws are applied.

(With inputs from agencies)