Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss

This executive order targets the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP by suspending security clearances for its personnel, restricting government contracts with the firm and entities doing business with it, limiting federal building access for its employees, and restricting federal hiring of its personnel. The order cites the firm's pro bono litigation related to January 6, 2021, its hiring of Mark Pomerantz, and alleged racial discrimination through DEI practices as justifications.

Federal Register Open PDF 90 FR 13039

Impact dates

Apr 13, 2025
Agencies submit contract assessments to OMB

Key directives

Suspend active security clearances for Paul Weiss individuals and Mark Pomerantz pending review
OMB to identify all government goods/services provided to Paul Weiss; agency heads to cease such provision
Require government contractors to disclose business with Paul Weiss
Review and terminate contracts with Paul Weiss to maximum extent permitted by law
Within 30 days: agencies submit contract assessments to OMB
Limit Paul Weiss employee access to federal buildings and official government engagement
Restrict hiring of Paul Weiss employees absent waiver with OPM consultation

Who is ordered

Timeline

Immediate

Security clearance suspensions for Paul Weiss personnel and Mark Pomerantz
OMB identification of government goods/services provided to Paul Weiss
Agency heads to cease provision of government materials/services to Paul Weiss

Near term (90d)

Within 30 days: Agencies submit contract assessments to OMB
Agency reviews of all contracts with Paul Weiss or entities disclosing business with Paul Weiss
Potential contract terminations to maximum extent permitted by law

Long term

Potential lasting restrictions on Paul Weiss access to federal work
Precedent for targeting specific law firms with federal sanctions
Possible litigation challenging order's legality

Risks & tensions

First Amendment and due process concerns from singling out specific law firm for government retaliation
Likely legal challenges based on viewpoint discrimination and bill of attainder concerns
Vague 'national security' and 'interests of the United States' standards create implementation uncertainty
Contractor disclosure requirement may chill attorney-client relationships and legal representation
References DEI/racial discrimination but order's primary mechanism is security/clearance-based, creating tension between stated rationale and operational means