Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey
TLDR
This executive order targets law firm Susman Godfrey LLP, suspending security clearances for its employees, terminating government contracts, restricting facility access, and discouraging hiring of its employees. It claims the firm “weaponizes” the legal system, degrades elections, undermines military effectiveness, and engages in racial discrimination, following a similar March 2025 order against another law firm. The unprecedented use of executive power against a private law firm raises significant constitutional and legitimacy concerns.
This executive order directs federal agencies to take actions against the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP. The order claims the firm “weaponizes” the American legal system, degrades election quality, undermines military effectiveness, and engages in racial discrimination. It orders reviews of security clearances, termination of government contracts, limitations on facility access, and restrictions on hiring former Susman employees.
Key provisions include:
- Suspends active security clearances held by Susman employees and cuts access to sensitive government facilities
- Requires disclosure of business relationships with Susman and directs agencies to terminate contracts with the firm
- Limits Susman employees’ access to federal buildings and discourages hiring them into government positions
- References a March 6, 2025 executive order that took similar actions against Perkins Coie LLP
The executive order targets a specific private law firm using an unprecedented level of executive authority. Notably, allegations against Susman Godfrey regarding “weaponizing” the legal system and “degrading” elections are not substantiated with specific evidence. Furthermore, the order claims that the firm’s diversity program constitutes “unlawful discrimination,” but provides no legal determination to support this claim. The order appears to be part of a pattern of using executive power against specific law firms, as evidenced by a similar order against Perkins Coie.
The order is likely to face significant legal challenges on First Amendment grounds and separation of powers concerns. Moreover, there is no clear process established for firms to appeal or contest these determinations. The sweeping nature of the restrictions, including security clearances, contracts, and hiring, raises questions about proportionality. Overall, the executive order’s targeting of a specific law firm using executive authority in an unprecedented way has raised significant concerns about its constitutionality and legitimacy.
Potential implications include:
- Creates a chilling effect on law firms taking on certain types of cases or clients
- Sets precedent for using executive orders to target specific private entities based on their legal work
- May face judicial review on constitutional grounds
- Could create disruption in ongoing government work where Susman has existing contracts
- Raises concerns about executive branch interference in the legal system
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1.
Background.
Lawyers and law firms that engage in activities detrimental to critical American interests should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should their conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts. My Administration must also take appropriate and necessary measures to guard against the actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that arise when the Government funds, engages with, or otherwise devotes resources to law firms and their clients that engage in conduct undermining critical American interests and priorities.
I have determined that action is necessary to address the significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest associated with Susman Godfrey LLP (Susman). Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections. Susman also funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.
Susman itself engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race. For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to “students of color.” My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.
Sec. 2.
Security Clearance Review.
(a) The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Susman, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.
(b) The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Susman. The heads of agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.
Sec. 3.
Contracting.
(a) To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, activities that are not aligned with American interests, including racial discrimination, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Susman and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.
(b) The heads of agencies shall review all contracts with Susman or with entities that disclose doing business with Susman under subsection (a) of this section. To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall:
(i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Susman has been hired to perform any service; and
(ii) otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Susman or with entities that do business with Susman effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.
Sec. 4.
Racial Discrimination.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the action authorized by section 4 of Executive Order 14230 of March 6, 2025 (Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP).
Sec. 5.
Personnel.
(a) The heads of agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Susman when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States. In addition, the heads of agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Susman employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.
(b) Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Susman, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.
Sec. 6.
General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
© This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 9, 2025.