Executive Order 14230, "Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP," signed by President Donald J. Trump on March 6, 2025, 90 Federal Register 11781 (March 11, 2025) (Full Document). "This article was drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model. All content has been reviewed and edited by Vernellia Randall to ensure accuracy and coherence." 

 

Presidential sealSummary

Executive Order 14230, 'Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP,' signed by President Donald J. Trump on March 6, 2025, and published in the Federal Register at 90 FR 11781 on March 11, 2025, is a measure that claims to address national security and legal risks linked to Perkins Coie LLP. However, its implications go beyond these stated concerns, as it directs federal agencies to assess and mitigate any risks arising from the firm's activities, partnerships, or contractual engagements with the federal government.

The executive order directs federal agencies to assess and mitigate any risks arising from the firm's activities, partnerships, or contractual engagements with the federal government. It specifies that agencies must review past and current legal representations, lobbying efforts, and policy advisory roles performed by Perkins Coie LLP to determine whether they present conflicts of interest or security vulnerabilities.

The order mandates the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to lead an interagency review and compile a report within 90 days. The report must identify any legal or security risks stemming from the firm's operations and propose measures to address those risks, including potential restrictions on future federal contracts or advisory roles.

Additionally, the executive order instructs the Department of the Treasury to evaluate financial transactions and regulatory compliance involving Perkins Coie LLP to ensure adherence to anti-money laundering and foreign influence laws. Federal agencies are required to suspend or reconsider existing contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with the firm if deemed necessary to protect national security and government integrity.

The order also directs the Attorney General to examine legal ethics implications related to the firm's past representations and whether any actions warrant further investigation or referral to the appropriate regulatory bodies. The order emphasizes the importance of protecting sensitive government information and preventing conflicts of interest that could compromise federal decision-making.

Furthermore, Executive Order 14230 includes directives related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. This order is part of a broader effort to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies, restricting efforts to address systemic racial disparities. It highlights the Administration's commitment to ending discrimination under DEI policies and ensuring that federal benefits and contracts align with U.S. laws and national security priorities. This directive continues the policy direction of dismantling DEI-related initiatives within federal agencies and restricting their influence in government operations.

Finally, the executive order grants federal agencies the authority to take immediate corrective actions, including contract terminations or restrictions, pending the outcome of the interagency review. It concludes with provisions ensuring that actions taken under this order are consistent with existing laws and constitutional protections.

 

Racial Justice Analysis

While Executive Order 14230 is presented as a national security and legal integrity measure, its likely consequences could disproportionately harm historically disadvantaged groups. By undermining legal advocacy, restricting access to justice, and limiting institutional support for racial equity, this order's direct and indirect effects could exacerbate existing racial disparities in key areas such as voting rights, civil rights litigation, and government accountability.

 

1. Targeting a Firm with a History of Civil Rights and Voting Rights Work

Perkins Coie LLP has played a significant role in legal challenges protecting marginalized communities' rights, particularly in voting rights litigation and civil rights enforcement. By singling out this firm for federal scrutiny and potential contract restrictions, the executive order could:

  1. Limit the firm's ability to continue representing clients in cases that challenge racial discrimination, particularly in voting rights cases that impact Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities.
  2. Creates a chilling effect for other legal organizations that take on similar work, making firms more hesitant to litigate racial justice cases for fear of government retaliation.
  3. Reduce legal advocacy capacity, making it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to challenge racial gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and other policies that disproportionately impact communities of color.

 

2. Restricting Legal Representation in Government Accountability Cases

Perkins Coie LLP has been involved in legal actions, holding the federal government accountable in matters related to civil rights, government transparency, and policy enforcement. By directing federal agencies to review and reconsider any contracts, grants, or engagements with the firm, the order effectively:

  1. Reduces the legal checks on federal actions that may disproportionately harm racial minorities.
  2. Weakens the ability of historically marginalized groups to challenge discriminatory policies, particularly those related to policing, education, and housing discrimination.
  3. Interferes with legal representation for racial justice initiatives, limiting the capacity of civil rights organizations to work with established legal experts in cases against federal or state government discrimination.

 

3. Undermining DEI Efforts in Federal Policy

This order is part of a broader effort to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. This means:

  1. Federal agencies will have fewer resources and incentives to consider racial equity when making funding, policy, and contracting decisions.
  2. Legal challenges that rely on federal contracts or partnerships with firms specializing in DEI-related cases may lose support, creating additional barriers to racial justice litigation.
  3. It signals a shift in government policy from acknowledging and addressing racial disparities. These further marginalizing communities rely on these initiatives to counteract systemic inequities.

 

Advocacy

1. Legal Challenges & Litigation

  1. Challenge the executive order in federal court, arguing that it disproportionately targets legal representation for historically marginalized communities.
  2. Monitor enforcement and implementation to determine whether agencies use the order to deny contracts or funding to Perkins Coie LLP or other legal organizations involved in racial justice work.

2. Congressional & Legislative Action

  1. Push for legislative oversight by urging members of Congress to introduce measures that protect legal advocacy organizations from political retaliation.
  2. Engage with state and local lawmakers to ensure civil rights organizations can continue working with legal experts.

3. Public Awareness & Media Advocacy

  1. Engage the media to frame the issue as a direct attack on racial justice advocacy.
  2. Amplify affected voices by featuring testimonies from individuals and organizations impacted by the order.

4. Coalition Building & Grassroots Mobilization

  1. Form coalitions between civil rights groups, legal organizations, and community networks to collectively oppose the order.
  2. Encourage grassroots advocacy, including petition drives and coordinated outreach to elected officials.

 

Conclusion

By targeting a key legal firm, Executive Order 14230 disrupts racial justice efforts, erodes legal protections for marginalized communities, and sets a dangerous precedent for government retaliation against civil rights advocacy. However, the potential for change through immediate and coordinated action across legal, legislative, and grassroots platforms is significant. This action can counteract this order's impact and protect the legal rights of historically marginalized communities.