Fact Check: "Eight law firms pledged $100 million to $125 million in pro bono work to avoid targeting."
What We Know
The claim that eight law firms pledged between $100 million to $125 million in pro bono work to avoid targeting by the Trump administration is based on actions taken in early 2025. Following executive orders issued by President Trump that threatened the operations of certain law firms, nine firms, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, made deals with the administration. These agreements included commitments to provide a total of approximately $940 million in pro bono work to support causes aligned with the administration's interests (source-1, source-2).
The specific pledges from individual firms included:
- Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million
- A&O Shearman: $125 million
- Latham & Watkins: $125 million
- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: $125 million
- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: $100 million
- Milbank: $100 million
- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison: $40 million (source-2).
Analysis
The claim is partially true because while it accurately reflects the total commitments made by the law firms involved, it simplifies the context and the nature of these pledges. The total of $940 million in pro bono work was indeed pledged by the nine firms as part of their agreements with the Trump administration. However, the claim specifically mentions "eight law firms," which could be misleading since the total number of firms involved in the pro bono commitments is nine, and the amounts pledged vary significantly from firm to firm.
Moreover, the context surrounding these pledges is crucial. The law firms were responding to what many perceived as retaliatory actions from the Trump administration against firms that had previously represented clients opposing Trump. The executive orders issued by Trump aimed to limit these firms' access to government contracts and other resources, creating a coercive environment for the firms to negotiate these pro bono commitments (source-1, source-3).
The reliability of the sources reporting on these events is generally high, with major news outlets like Reuters and The New York Times providing coverage. However, the framing of the situation can vary, with some reports emphasizing the coercive nature of the agreements while others focus on the firms' willingness to contribute to pro bono work.
Conclusion
The claim that "eight law firms pledged $100 million to $125 million in pro bono work to avoid targeting" is partially true. While it captures the essence of the law firms' commitments, it misrepresents the total number of firms involved and the specific amounts pledged by each. The context of these pledges, made under pressure from the Trump administration, is also essential to understanding the full picture.
