Trump’s DOJ Goes After Firms Over Alleged Legal Corruption

Department of Justice building with American flag.

President Trump’s DOJ launches unprecedented crackdown on legal corruption as Attorney General Pam Bondi targets specific firms engaged in “lawfare,” including Marc Elias’s firm that helped create the Steele dossier which falsely claimed Trump had Russian connections.

Key Takeaways

Trump directed Attorney General Bondi to investigate attorneys and law firms suspected of “lawfare,” with specific focus on Marc Elias and his firm’s involvement with the debunked Steele dossier
Lawyers engaging in frivolous litigation against the government may face sanctions, security clearance revocation, and termination of federal contracts
The DOJ investigation covers lawyer misconduct over the past eight years, targeting those who have undermined national security, election integrity, and immigration enforcement
Some law firms, like Paul Weiss, have already made deals with the administration to avoid scrutiny, while others claim the initiative threatens the rule of law

Trump Takes Aim at Legal Corruption

President Donald Trump has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a sweeping investigation into law firms and attorneys suspected of engaging in what his administration calls “lawfare”—the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents and the federal government. The presidential memo specifically names Marc Elias and his law firm, Elias Law Group LLP, highlighting their connection to the discredited Steele dossier that was used to fuel years of Russian collusion investigations against Trump during his first term.

The White House memorandum outlines the need for accountability of attorneys who violate U.S. laws or professional conduct rules, particularly when their actions impact national security, public safety, or election integrity. Bondi has been instructed to refer attorneys for disciplinary action if they’re found to have violated professional standards, with consequences that could include sanctions, revocation of security clearances, or termination of federal contracts. The Department of Justice has already begun reviewing law firms, focusing on misconduct over the past eight years.

Trump’s DOJ targets law firms over weaponization: ‘Grossly unethical misconduct’ https://t.co/r5KoRmnahS pic.twitter.com/AExHqeK94m

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) March 25, 2025

Targeting Political Lawfare

The Trump administration is using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as the primary tool in this effort—a rarely utilized procedural mechanism designed to deter frivolous litigation. The rule prohibits legal filings made “for improper purpose[s]” or used “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” While judges typically initiate Rule 11 sanctions, the administration is taking a proactive approach by directing the DOJ to pursue sanctions against lawyers deemed to be abusing the court system.

“President Trump is attempting to dismantle the Constitution and attack the rule of law in his obsessive pursuit of retribution against his political opponents. Today’s White House Memo targets not only me and my law firm, but every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law,” Marc Elias said.

Elias’s dramatic response ignores the legitimate concerns about how his firm and others have manipulated the legal system. The memo specifically addresses lawyers who have filed frivolous asylum claims and litigation designed to undermine immigration enforcement—a key area where the previous administration faced significant legal obstruction. With over 100 lawsuits already filed against Trump’s government operations overhaul, the administration views this initiative as necessary to prevent further exploitation of the courts for political purposes.

Selective Enforcement and Strategic Compliance

The Trump administration has demonstrated that cooperation with its agenda can lead to reprieve from scrutiny. In a telling development, Trump rescinded an executive order targeting the law firm Paul Weiss after the firm committed to providing pro bono services aligned with his administration’s initiatives. This carrot-and-stick approach has already yielded results, with some firms making deals to avoid becoming targets while others, like Jenner & Block (which previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in investigating Trump), remain in the crosshairs.

“The real question is, how effective is that investigation going to be and how much is it going to veer into what exactly it seems like, which is a threat against anybody who has dared to take a position opposed to the government,” said Rebecca Roiphe.

Critics like Roiphe miss the point entirely—the issue isn’t about opposition to the government but about abusing the legal system to achieve political goals outside the democratic process. For years, leftist attorneys have manipulated courts to block legitimate executive actions, particularly on immigration enforcement, effectively undermining the will of American voters. The lack of consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits has emboldened activist lawyers to tie up administration initiatives in endless litigation, regardless of legal merit.

Restoring Legal Accountability

While Democrats and their media allies predictably frame this initiative as an attack on the rule of law, the opposite is true. The effort seeks to restore integrity to a legal system increasingly weaponized for partisan purposes. By holding attorneys accountable to existing ethical standards that prohibit frivolous litigation, the administration aims to ensure that courts remain forums for legitimate legal disputes rather than vehicles for political obstruction. American taxpayers have footed the bill for years of politically motivated lawsuits that have hampered effective governance—particularly on border security.

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” says Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

For conservative Americans who have watched in frustration as activist judges and lawyers undermined immigration enforcement, election integrity efforts, and other priorities, this initiative represents a long-overdue check on legal abuse. By targeting the orchestrators of lawfare rather than just fighting individual cases, the administration is addressing a root cause of governmental dysfunction. The message is clear: lawyers who abuse the legal system for political ends will no longer operate with impunity at taxpayer expense.