President Donald Trump revoked his executive order targeting Paul Weiss on March 21, 2025, after the law firm agreed to policy changes and a pro bono commitment the White House valued at $40 million. That figure describes a pledge, not a verified amount of services delivered. The full private agreement and a final accounting are not established in the available public record.
What happened between Paul Weiss and the White House?
On March 14, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14237, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.” It included measures involving attorneys’ security clearances, federal contracts and access to federal facilities. Seven days later, Trump signed Executive Order 14244, “Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss,” revoking the earlier order.
The phrase “avoid retribution” characterizes the sequence; it is not a neutral legal finding. The revocation order calls the later action “remedial,” while the Associated Press reported that Paul Weiss averted the order through a deal after a White House meeting.
What did Paul Weiss agree to?
The March 21 order says the firm indicated it would take the following actions:
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute#1 Best Overall
- Adopt political neutrality in client selection and attorney hiring.
- Take on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum.
- Use merit-based hiring, promotion and retention instead of DEI policies.
- Dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during Trump’s term to causes including assisting veterans, fairness in the justice system and combating antisemitism.
The order’s wording records what the White House said the firm had indicated it would do. It does not establish that the full commitment was completed or independently verify the value of services delivered.
Is the $40 million commitment verified as delivered?
No final, independent accounting of pro bono services delivered under the commitment is established in the sources reviewed. In a September 24, 2025 press release, Senator Richard Blumenthal said Paul Weiss had described the commitment as “$40 million in pro bono services over the next four years” for veterans, combating antisemitism and fairness in the justice system. The release reflects the senators’ account and concerns; it is not a final audit.
What remains unclear about the agreement?
The complete private agreement and its implementation details are not established in the public record cited here. On April 6, 2025, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Jamie Raskin wrote to Paul Weiss seeking the specific terms and asking whether the March 21 order accurately reflected them. Their letter alleged that Trump had publicly described terms—including an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by former partner Mark Pomerantz and an end to DEI policies—that the lawmakers said were absent from a reportedly shared internal version. That discrepancy is an allegation raised in the letter, not a settled account of the private deal.
The lawmakers also sought information about reported Paul Weiss work for the Commerce Department, including its scope, compensation, hours, retainers and relationship to the March agreement. The senators’ September release presents questions and requests; it does not resolve them.
In a 2025 opinion in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell described the precision of law-firm deal terms in the record before her as “somewhat fuzzy.” The opinion noted that government counsel could not answer basic questions about documentation, duration or how recipients of promised free legal work would be selected. That observation concerned the record in that litigation and broader deals; it is not a finding that no Paul Weiss agreement exists.
Why did Paul Weiss make a deal instead of suing?
The Associated Press reported that chairman Brad Karp initially intended to sue but worried that even winning in court would not undo clients’ perception that the firm was unwelcome in the administration. AP also reported, based on Karp’s internal account, that support from fellow firms did not materialize and that some firms sought to recruit Paul Weiss clients or lawyers.
Rank #4
- Book/Online Audio
- Pages: 56
- Instrumentation: Saxophone
The agreement drew criticism from lawyers and more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni, according to AP. Other targeted firms, including Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, chose to sue; AP reported that judges temporarily blocked key sections of their orders at the time of its March 30, 2025 report. The responses differed, and the available record does not establish that the firms’ arrangements or circumstances were identical.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did the revocation order legally say?
Executive Order 14244 states: “I hereby revoke Executive Order 14237 of March 14, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss).” It also says the order does not create a right or benefit enforceable against the United States or other parties named in its general provisions. That disclaimer is language in the executive order; it is not a ruling on whether a separate private agreement is enforceable.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsQuick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
