Several major U.S. law firms have bent the knee to President Donald Trump’s illiberal regime in recent weeks, reportedly committing millions of dollars’ worth of free legal services to help Trump’s administration pursue any number of their political goals.

On Friday, Trump announced that five more law firms made deals with his administration in the face of potential punitive action:  Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

In social media posts, Trump claimed the firms have agreed to provide free legal work for things like fighting antisemitism, assisting law enforcement and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.” It’s a rather vague list that seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation. Trump, for example, has used dubious claims of antisemitism to wield authoritarian power over college campuses, has routinely lobbed baseless allegations of voter fraud against liberalsand has vowed to address what he called a “definite anti-white feeling” in the country. So, given the descriptions of the work he has secured from these law firms, there’s certainly potential for him to ask them to assist with his antidemocratic ambitions for the executive branch.

The Guardian reported Friday that, in all, this announcement means Trump “has secured a total of $940 million in pro bono work from some of the most powerful law firms in the U.S.”

As my colleague Steve Benen noted recently, Trump has said the law firms he’s targeted did “nothing wrong,” essentially acknowledging that his efforts were about forcing them into submission more than anything else. And he’s clearly more than happy to have them at his disposal, to pursue all sorts of priorities. Trump has said he wants to use these law firms to aid his destructive trade warremarking several times this week that the law firms could be used to help his administration with trade negotiations.

As CBS News reported:

I don’t imagine the firms Trump has essentially conquered are eager to spend their resources fighting Trump’s trade war, which is widely unpopular and has been denounced by economists for being rooted in shoddy logic. But this is the natural outcome of these law firms acquiescing to Trump.

I agree with former Attorney General Eric Holder, who in a recent interview with Rachel Maddow denounced these law firms as cowardly and rebuked many of them for refusing to stand alongside other law firms that are fighting the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on the legal profession.

These firms have essentially placed themselves at the whim of a wannabe kingno matter how petty, economically destructive or antithetical to democracy his ideas may be.

Ja’han Jones

Ja’han Jones is an BLN opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog. He is a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”

After Donald Trump’s victory in last year’s presidential election, several MAGA influencers cheered the prospect of him trampling on women’s rights. And Republican lawmakers have acted on that ethos with startling speed.

Democratic women sounded the alarm Thursday following the House’s passage of the so-called SAVE Actwhich would require all states to obtain proof of citizenship from people registering to vote, as well as mandate that states have a program to remove undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow Americans to sue officials who don’t follow the proof-of-citizenship requirements. Voting rights activists have condemned the measure as a voter suppression billsaying it requires documents that members of marginalized groups, particularly nonwhite people, disproportionately lack.

And critics have also said the law runs the risk of disenfranchising women who marry and then change their last name.

“The House just passed the Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates,” Hillary Clinton noted on X.

“Make sure your senators know you expect them to stand against it,” she wrote.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., posted a similar message, warning that the legislation risks disenfranchising millions of women.

As did Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio.

“The SAVE Act is yet another Republican attack on women,” she wrote.

“This bill would make registering to vote extremely difficult for millions of women who have changed their name, including over 2 million Ohioans.

“It’s a propaganda bill that creates problems instead of solving them. #HellNo.”

Conservatives have essentially tried to downplay the impact of the changes if the law is enacted. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, for example, had an online exchange with Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., in which he noted that several documents would be allowed as proof of citizenship — seemingly ignoring that requiring such a document would, in itself, constitute an added barrier for many voters.

And Balint checked Lee on that point.

“[Y]ou can show all the ‘fact’ sheets you want, but this is about practical implications,” she wrote. “If you changed your name, you will not be able to vote unless you jump through excessive hoops that require time, money, and travel if you live in a rural area.”

Fox News host Martha MacCallum also downplayed the suppressive effects of the legislation during an interview with Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., saying: “I changed stuff when I got married; it’s not that hard to do that.”

As many have noted, the legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it’s likely to be filibustered if it’s ever teed up for a vote. But the fact this passed in the House shows just how committed Republicans are to misogynistic gender hierarchy and the prospect of tipping elections in their favor.

Ja’han Jones

Ja’han Jones is an BLN opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog. He is a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”

This week, President Donald Trump told his supporters that “the states are just an agent of the federal government” — demonstrating, at best, a clear misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and the states’ rights to oversee elections.

When I was sworn into office in the state of Nevada, I took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution. I promised to protect our citizens’ freedoms, including the right to vote, because that’s my role and responsibility to the people of Nevada. As the chief elections officer, I work alongside election workers across the state year-round to ensure that, when elections take place, every eligible voter has access to a ballot, that their vote is accurately recorded and that it is counted only once. From rural to urban counties, we serve on the front lines of our election system — a decentralized, nonpartisan system that has served our country for centuries.

Nevada, alongside 18 other states, filed a federal lawsuit asking the courts to permanently void the president’s illegal order.

Trump also took an oath to uphold the Constitution. But just two months later, he issued an unlawful executive order that tramples on the constitutional authority of Congress and the states to oversee elections.

This order is an attack on the integrity of our election system, which protects the democratic process by which voters choose their leaders and hold them accountable. The order claims to advance “election integrity,” but it is best described as election interference. It violates our democracy’s separation of powers. It is, to put it bluntly, an illegal power grab that would have disastrous consequences for America’s voters.

The Constitution tasks states with administering and defending elections. And they will not permit this unlawful overreach. That’s why, last week, Nevada, alongside 18 other states, filed a federal lawsuit asking the courts to permanently void the president’s illegal order.

None of the president’s powers allow him to change the rules of elections. That is an intentional feature of our Constitution, which the Framers built in to ensure election integrity. Despite that, Trump is seeking to upend the voter registration process; impose arbitrary deadlines on vote counting; allow an unelected and unaccountable billionaire to invade state voter rolls; and withhold congressionally approved funding for election security.

State and local officials go to great lengths in order to ensure voting is secure, accessible and transparent. Research shows that voters feel remarkably confident about the integrity and accuracy of our state-run elections. Just six months ago, voters in every state cast ballots in their local communities, most saying it went smoothly. If federal policies were to change, voters say they would want them approved by Congress.

The order seeks to unleash Elon Musk’s DOGE on secure state systems which protect voters’ information. It would force last-minute changes to voter registration forms, which Congress has not approved. Trump also threatens to withhold already-approved election integrity funds and to target states with Justice Department investigations if states fail to comply.

In Nevada, the order’s requirements directly contradict state law and voter protections. It would, for example, require states to reject mail-in ballots received after Election Day. While 99% of ballots are on-hand at local election offices by election night, only 1% of ballots are received after Election Day. In a battleground state like Nevada, every eligible vote counts and can have an impact for the whole country — we need to protect the voices of our voters. Our laws allow for the counting of that 1% of ballots so long as they are mailed by Election Day — a measure that’s meant to ensure that voters have every legal opportunity to make their voices heard.

The order seeks to unleash Elon Musk’s DOGE on secure state systems which protect voters’ information.

At the same time as he promotes this unlawful order, the president is also pushing unhinged and unconstitutional notions of seeking a third term — something our election system does not allow. His administration is also abandoning election integrity efforts that are well within the president’s power to support. They have slashed millions in election security funds and laid off staff at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a vital enforcer of election security. Through CISA, state officials share information about threats to voting, including risks of foreign intervention.

President Trump’s executive order on elections seeks to undo our proven safeguards and interfere with state-run voter registration systems and election administration procedures. But the president has no authority to force Congress and the states to do his bidding. That’s a good thing because his bidding, as outlined in the order, would do real harm.

This order would create widespread confusion and fundamentally undermine the rights and freedoms of eligible U.S. voters — just in time for next year’s midterms.

I chose to work in public service because I love our state and country, and I believe fiercely in the rule of law. In defense of the rule of law and the voters of Nevada, we will not hand over the keys to our election system — the very process by which voters hold their elected officials accountable — based on an unlawful order.

Cisco Aguilar

Francisco “Cisco” Aguilar was elected as Nevada secretary of state in 2022. He also serves as the chair for the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State (DASS). Secretary Aguilar is the founding chairman of Cristo Rey St. Viator College Preparatory High School, serving students in one of Las Vegas’ most vulnerable neighborhoods.