- Executive order targets Perkins Coie lawyers’ security clearances
- Action tied to discredited 2016 opposition research funding
- Special Counsel Durham found Steele dossier unverified in 2023 report
- Part of broader pattern targeting political adversaries
- Alleges unlawful DEI practices at law firm
The Trump administration escalated its campaign against perceived political adversaries Thursday with an executive order challenging security clearances for attorneys at Perkins Coie. This Washington-based firm became embroiled in controversy after financing opposition research through Fusion GPS during the 2016 election cycle. The now-infamous Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Trump and Russian officials, became central to early FBI investigations despite later being discredited.
Legal analysts note this marks the first time security clearances have been weaponized against private law firms. A 2022 Brookings Institution study revealed 89% of national security attorneys maintain clearances, creating potential ripple effects for government-contracted legal work. The order follows similar actions against former intelligence officials who questioned Trump’s 2020 election claims.
Regional comparisons show contrasting approaches to political intelligence operations. Unlike the UK’s strict regulation of opposition research under the Electoral Commission, U.S. campaigns face minimal disclosure requirements – a gap highlighted in the 2019 Mueller Report. This regulatory vacuum enabled the Clinton campaign’s $1.02 million payment to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’ services, funds later traced to Steele’s research.
The Justice Department’s parallel investigation into DEI practices introduces new corporate risk factors. Since 2021, 43% of Fortune 500 companies have adopted Perkins Coie-style diversity initiatives now under scrutiny. Attorney General Bondi’s directive could reshape hiring practices at federally funded institutions, potentially affecting $74 billion in annual contracts.
While Trump framed the order as preventing future ‘weaponization,’ critics warn it establishes dangerous precedents. Former NSA general counsel Glenn Gerstell noted: ‘Security clearances exist to protect national secrets, not punish political opponents.’ The administration’s actions coincide with ongoing lawsuits challenging the limits of presidential authority over private sector clearances.