Fact Check: Trump's Order Against Perkins Coie Targeted Its Representation of Hillary Clinton
What We Know
On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that specifically targeted the law firm Perkins Coie LLP. The order cited Perkins Coie's representation of Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign as a primary reason for the action. According to the executive order, Perkins Coie "hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false 'dossier' designed to steal an election" (source-1). This claim aligns with a broader narrative that Trump has promoted regarding the legitimacy of the 2016 election and the alleged misconduct of those involved in the investigation into his campaign.
In addition to the claims about the dossier, the executive order accused Perkins Coie of engaging in practices that undermine democratic processes and judicial integrity, including racial discrimination (source-1). The order effectively stripped Perkins Coie of access to federal buildings and personnel, significantly impacting its ability to operate as a legal entity representing clients in federal matters (source-3).
Analysis
The executive order's focus on Perkins Coie's representation of Clinton is well-documented. Legal experts and news reports confirm that the order was indeed a direct response to Perkins Coie's involvement in the 2016 campaign, particularly regarding the hiring of Fusion GPS, which produced the controversial Steele dossier (source-3). Critics of the order argue that it represents a troubling precedent where legal firms could be punished for representing clients who are politically opposed to the president, raising concerns about the implications for the legal profession (source-3).
Furthermore, a federal judge later ruled that Trump's executive order was unlawful, citing violations of free speech and due process (source-4). This ruling underscores the contentious nature of the order and its implications for legal representation in politically charged environments.
The sources used in this analysis are credible, including official government documents and reputable news organizations. However, the framing of the claims within the executive order reflects a strong partisan perspective, which may influence the interpretation of the facts presented.
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's order against Perkins Coie targeted its representation of Hillary Clinton is True. The executive order explicitly mentions Perkins Coie's role in Clinton's 2016 campaign as a justification for the punitive measures taken against the firm. The evidence from both the executive order and subsequent legal analyses supports this conclusion, highlighting the political motivations behind the order and its potential ramifications for the legal profession.
