On Wednesday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting another law firm in his retribution spree. Trump appears to be using these orders not only to punish lawyers for representing certain clients, but also to rewrite history. And the law firms that capitulate to his extortion are helping to advance the false narrative of election fraud.

The latest order targets Susman Godfried, a Houston-based firm whose primary sin appears to be representing Dominion Voting Systems in defamation suits relating to baseless claims of 2020 election fraud.

The latest order targets Susman Godfried, a Houston-based firm whose primary sin appears to be representing Dominion Voting Systems in defamation suits relating to baseless claims of 2020 election fraud. Susman negotiated the eleventh hour $787 million settlement that Fox News paid in 2023. The firm is also representing Dominion in defamation cases against Newsmax, as well as in cases against former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell. In fact, the executive order came on the same day a judge in Delaware ruled in favor of Dominion in its case against Newsmax. No one has ever accused Trump of subtlety.

Susman Godfried has vowed to challenge Trump’s action, stating on Wednesday“There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

The order suspends security clearances for Susman’s lawyers, terminates government contracts, prohibits government agencies from hiring the firm’s employees, and bars them from federal buildings, a significant obstacle for lawyers handling cases in federal courts. But the order did more than punish Susman. Remarkably, the order also suggests that it is the law firm that has undermined election integrity. “Susman,” the order states, “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”

A fact sheet accompanying the order puts Wednesday’s action in context of a broader pattern of disturbing revisionism. Under the heading, “A RETURN TO ACCOUNTABILITY,” the order states, “President Trump is delivering on his promise to end the weaponization of government and protect the nation from partisan and bad faith actors who exploit their influence.” From the Oval Office, Trump bragged that many law firms have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve allegations in executive orders. He did not mention that the payments are coming in the form of in-kind pro bono legal services. And though none of the firms have admitted guilt, Trump said all of the law firms against whom he has taken action have been involved in “election misconduct.”

These allegations have no basis in fact, but the capitulation of major law firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps and others creates the impression that Trump’s accusations are valid. Another five law firms entered into agreements with Trump on Friday to avoid becoming the next targets for punishment, agreeing to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal services to resolve unsupported claims of misconduct in hiring practices to promote diversity. Their appeasement further advances the public perceptions that these firms must have done something wrong. After all, who would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve a baseless claim?

By caving in to Trump’s demands, the firms may believe they are saving themselves, but they are in fact helping to advance Trump’s disinformation campaign. These firms, which Trump said have agreed to pay from $40 million to $125 million each, are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in Trump’s game to change public perception about his own legal troubles. He is characterizing the enormous payouts as concessions; proof that he has been a victim of what White House aide Will Scharf referred to as “lawfare.”

Consider the other orders. One firm, Covington & Burlingcame under fire for providing pro bono legal services to special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump for unlawfully retaining government documents and interfering in the 2020 election. Perkins Coie represented the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. Some firms got blacklisted for employing certain lawyers in the past, such as former special counsel Robert Muellerhis deputy, Andrew Weissmannwho investigated the Trump campaign for connections to Russia and worked on the hush money prosecution in Manhattan.

Of course, these orders would appear to violate the First Amendment right to free association.

Of course, these orders would appear to violate the First Amendment right to free association by punishing every member of an entire law firm solely because of the alleged misdeeds of one of its current or former lawyers. The orders also appear to run afoul of the Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of one’s choice by requiring clients with cases in federal court to go find new attorneys without limits on their access to government buildings. But Trump’s Oval Office remarks suggested that they are something more — part of a false narrative that the investigations of Trump were all cooked up — hoaxes and witch hunts all along.

Three firmsPerkins, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, have filed lawsuits and obtained temporary restraining orders. Three different judges have found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the orders violate the Constitution. Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie have been signed by more than 500 law firms and a number of prominent former senior government officialsincluding officials who were appointed by Republican presidents such as former FBI and CIA Director William Webster and retired Judge J. Michael Luttig. Paul Clementwho served as solicitor general in the administration of George W. Bush, is representing WilmerHale in its lawsuit.

Everyone involved is to be applauded for their courage. These leaders recognize that in combatting the attack on law firms, there is no right and left. There is only right and wrong.

Barbara McQuade

Barbara McQuade is an BLN columnist and NBC News and BLN legal analyst. She is the author of “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America,”as well as a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.