Loading...
Trump Escalates Authoritarian Push with Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Cities
In a dramatic and controversial move, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at expanding federal control over immigration enforcement by penalizing sanctuary cities and militarizing domestic law enforcement. The order, which was released on April 28, 2025, calls for direct involvement of the U.S. military in law enforcement operations—openly challenging the Posse Comitatus Act, a longstanding statute that restricts military involvement in domestic affairs.
The order also provides sweeping protections for police officers, mandating the Department of Justice to create a legal support mechanism that shields officers from civil or criminal liability when performing their duties. In effect, it strengthens qualified immunity and adds a new layer of federal legal defense and indemnification, funded in part by compelled Biglaw pro bono services.
Executive Order Details: Military Enforcement and Biglaw Support for Police
The most alarming provisions of the executive order include:
- Military Involvement: The Department of Defense will coordinate with federal and local law enforcement in “high-crime” sanctuary jurisdictions.
- Legal Immunity Expansion: The Attorney General must create a system to provide legal resources to law enforcement officers who “unjustly incur expenses and liabilities” in the course of duty.
- Biglaw Pro Bono Requirement: The DOJ will collaborate with private law firms to assign pro bono attorneys to defend police accused of misconduct.
This marks a significant and dangerous shift—leveraging elite corporate legal talent to defend officers in cases that may involve civil rights violations or excessive force, particularly in racially charged contexts.
Biglaw’s Faustian Bargain Comes Due
The executive order has special significance for a group of high-profile firms that recently struck deals with the Trump administration. In exchange for avoiding retaliatory executive orders aimed at diversity programs and alleged political bias, firms such as:
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Latham & Watkins
- Skadden
- Paul Weiss
- Milbank
- Willkie Farr
- Simpson Thacher
- A&O Shearman
- Cadwalader
…agreed to provide hundreds of millions in pro bono legal services to government-approved causes. Now, those firms are learning the true price of compliance.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
What began as an effort to safeguard firm interests has evolved into an open-ended commitment that includes defending police officers accused of brutality and civil rights abuses. And with nearly $950 million in total pro bono commitments pledged across these firms, the Trump administration appears poised to use that fund to reshape legal norms around policing, accountability, and civil liberties.
From DEI to Defense of Police Brutality: A Startling Shift
This is a stark departure from the post-George Floyd era of 2020, when many of the same firms issued statements in support of racial justice, pledged pro bono resources to civil rights organizations, and amplified their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Today, these firms find themselves on the opposite side of that conversation—defending law enforcement officers implicated in the very injustices they once condemned.
The irony is especially bitter considering that:
- In 2020, these firms partnered with organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
- In 2025, they may now defend officers involved in high-profile use-of-force cases.
Can Firms Draw the Line?
Some firms, such as A&O Shearman, have attempted to claim internal boundaries on what types of cases they’ll accept under the executive order mandates. But as legal analysts and former DOJ officials have noted, there is no legal enforcement mechanism to prevent reassignment or escalation of these obligations.
As Above the Law’s Joe Patrice noted using a Star Wars analogy: the firms are playing the role of Lando Calrissian—trying to maintain a truce with an authoritarian regime that has no intention of keeping its word. The deal is “getting worse all the time,” and yet the firms remain too pot-committed to walk away without consequences.
Legal Ethics at a Crossroads
This situation raises significant questions about:
- The ethical obligations of law firms: Can a firm simultaneously protect civil rights and defend police misconduct?
- Client trust and public perception: What happens to a firm’s reputation when it’s seen defending officers in brutality cases?
- The independence of the legal profession: Is the legal sector being conscripted into a shadow enforcement arm of the executive branch?
With major firms now in a legally and politically precarious position, the profession faces a reckoning over how much compromise is too much when power is abused.
What Comes Next?
The most chilling question is: What else will these firms be asked—or told—to do? With $950 million in pro bono funds to burn, Trump’s DOJ may begin assigning these firms to prosecute immigration cases, defend surveillance policies, or even suppress protest-related lawsuits.
As long as these firms remain in Trump’s pro bono ecosystem, the boundaries of their involvement will be defined by the administration—not their stated values.
FAQs
Q: What is the Posse Comitatus Act and why is it relevant here?
A: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Trump’s executive order challenges this norm by encouraging military coordination with local police in sanctuary cities.
Q: Are law firms legally required to follow Trump’s executive orders?
A: The firms voluntarily entered into agreements in exchange for avoiding executive action. While not compelled by law, backing out would likely trigger further punitive orders or loss of federal contracts.
Q: Why is this seen as a threat to legal ethics?
A: Many believe these pro bono assignments compromise the profession’s independence by aligning law firms with politically motivated law enforcement priorities, particularly in cases that may involve civil rights violations.
Q: Have any firms pushed back against their role in defending police officers?
A: Some firms, such as A&O Shearman, have issued internal statements about limiting the scope of their work—but the effectiveness and credibility of those boundaries remain unclear.
