Talk:Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration

Article title, long quotations, and copying from another article

@Remember, it's great that you created an article about Trump's attacks on the legal profession. I was thinking about that myself. A few comments: I'm wondering if it should instead be titled "Targeting the legal profession under the second Trump Administration," since Trump has also targeted at least one judge, calling for James Boasberg to be impeached (Boasberg is the judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, where the Trump admin ay have ignored a judicial order), which lead to a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts. I think the quotes from the presidential actions are a bit long (per this essay, though I recognize that it's not a PAG). Also, when you copy a lot of text from another article, you should follow WP:COPYWITHIN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it should instead be titled "Targeting the legal profession under the second Trump Administration," since Trump has also targeted at least one judge, calling for James Boasberg to be impeached (Boasberg is the judge in the Alien Enemies Act case, where the Trump admin ay have ignored a judicial order), which lead to a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts.

I’m flexible and happy to defer to consensus. I could see arguments for limiting the article to private attorneys and private firms but I could also see expanding it to the whole legal profession. I’d suggest we open this up to discussion and see what people think. I’m happy to support either solution.Remember (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the quotes from the presidential actions are a bit long (per this essay, though I recognize that it's not a PAG). Also, when you copy a lot of text from another article, you should follow WP:COPYWITHIN.

Thanks! Will do Remember (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Folkezoft, I see that you've added a merge tag. Given that 2025 United States government action against law firms has much less content (most of which is already in this article), and you're the only person who has edited that article, I suggest that you just merge that into this article without waiting for discussion and then either ask for speedy deletion G7, or blank the page and turn it into a redirect. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Jumping into this thread, there are WAY too many long quotes that are re-stating the primary source's rhetoric. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. I'm simplifying these into simple descriptions of the orders. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember:: your edit summary is rife with your opinion regarding the importance of the text of the EOs. We aren't Wikiquote. As noted above, WP:OVERQUOTING seems very much in play here. We shouldn't fill this article with paragraph after paragraph of the EO's rhetoric. We such summarize the fact, and provide the links, as my edits do. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim:: I disagree but let’s just ask a bunch of other editors to weigh in so we can get consensus. Happy to just ask all the top editors of the page to chime in. Let me know if you oppose that.

My position is that we are dealing with many separate executive orders and memos in this one article and each one is notable in the language that it employs and the allegations that are made against the firms. Other articles that just deal with one executive order will cite the relevant excerpts verbatim (see Executive Order 9066). The problem (if there is one) is the breadth of this one article, not the quoting of the actual text. But even with the quoted texts this page isn’t too large that it requires a split. Remember (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "top editors", but yes, I engaged in this very thread to help work towards consensus. The key issue is that this is an encyclopedia and not a mirror of primary source material. We can easily summarize the key elements of the EOs (as I attempted) and how they are notable, reactions, etc. We don't need to repost the entire text, no matter how much you think "It’s all very different from probably any other executive order and aggressive against the law firms". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Great! We have agreement! And I too am happy to work to consensus. If my view loses, that works for me. I just want a fair hearing of my view with the community. And to clarify, what I meant by “top editors” is we just look at the people that edited this page and @ like the top 10-15 editors with the most edits to get their opinions. Also, I don’t want to litigate my view and your view too much since I think we understand each other’s views, but I did want to clarify that I never posted the whole EO. I always posted an excerpt that I thought was the most notable. Anyway, let me know if you are cool with @ the editors as suggested and if so, we can go from there. Remember (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don't have an opinion as to whether or not you decide to ping others. We do not agree on the substantive issue at hand. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Then I’ll ping them. Remember (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging people

@ReferenceMan:, @FactOrOpinion:, @Lindenfall:, @Faolin42:, @Anne drew:, @Folkezoft:, @Cahlin29:, @HandsomeFella:, @Ringo62:, @Davemck:, @Skinnnny.g:, @Snokalok:, and @Yeshivish613: I am pinging you all since you are the top editors of this page (according to this tool - https://xtools.wmcloud.org/). @ZimZalaBim: and myself have a debate regarding the excerpts from the EOs. I think that including the relevant quoted language is very useful and informative to the reader given the information provided and the nature of the writing. Additionally, I think there is a precedent on other pages that talk about EOs for even including the entire text (see Executive Order 9066), which is not something that we are doing on this page. Regardless I think ZimZalaBim and myself are both very reasonable editors and are happy to do whatever the consensus view is regarding the issue so I was polling you all to see if we can get consensus on this topic. Any votes, thoughts, or insights you can provide on these issues would be most appreciated. Remember (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that besides WP:OTHERSTUFF not being a particularly strong argument, Executive Order 9066 has become an indellible part of US history over hte 60+ years since its issuance. There's a much stronger case to make for including its text than these recent spattering of orders. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

A top editor? Moi? Oh darling, you’re too kind.

In all seriousness, however, I don’t think we need entire paragraphs pasted. Particularly ideologically charged language should be quoted in bites, particularly egregious legal arguments should be paraphrased + bites, but pasting entire paragraphs is not necessary. Snokalok (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I raised it originally because I thought the quotes were too long.

For example, here's a first pass at paraphrasing the first long quote:

In this presidential memorandum, Trump directed the attorney general and agency heads to suspend the security clearances of specific people associated with Covington & Burling, to the extent allowable by law. This set of people included Peter Koski and anyone at Covington & Burling who had supported the special counsel investigations into Trump that were headed by Jack Smith. Trump said that security clearances would be suspended "pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process." He further ordered that any contracts involving Covington & Burling be reviewed, and terminated "to the maximum extent permitted by law".

I'm sure that wording could be improved, but I think it captures the most significant parts of the memorandum. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I had trimmed all these quotes into simple summaries of each EO here, before I was reverted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought the shorter summaries were pretty well done, and as it should be. Lengthy quotes are seldom necessary, though sometimes useful. I defer to MOS:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Quotations/2#: "Summary/paraphrase. When the information won't be damaged by routine handling, do not use quotes." Lindenfall (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, so far it looks like the consensus is to do the summaries. Happy to defer to consensus. @ZimZalaBim, feel free to summarize the excerpts if you want (or anyone else can). I can try to get to it later if others can't do it. Remember (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I worked to summarize using ZimZalaBim's previous summaries. Happy to continue to discuss how best to summarize if people want to discuss. Remember (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 11:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Paul Weiss committed to $40 million of pro bono legal services in support of Trump administration's goals to settle executive action against the firm?

• Source: Bloomberg Tax

• Reviewed:

Created by Remember (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Remember (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC).

• Comment: @Remember: this subject is still very much in the news. Two things: 1) The formatting of the name "Paul Weiss" in your hook seems to deviate from the convention ("Paul, Weiss") used in the article. 2) Given the vast array of potential hooks in your article, you might try to go with something else or provide additional choices for reviewers. I'm just guessing, but given the topic, nobody is going to touch this unless it is less controversial. I can imagine many different hooks that don't name law firms in the hook, etc. You've got so many choices here; try to come up with a few other hooks. I suspect that will attract a reviewer or two. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I’ll think up some alts and fix the name. Remember (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I am not seeing the "Paul, Weiss" that you mentioned. Everything is listed with the short name "Paul Weiss". Did I miss something? Remember (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be looking at the wrong article? Try Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. It probably doesn't matter as I see the news agencies don't seem to follow that convention. I'm only seeing it used in the Wikipedia article. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Alt 1 ... that due to Trump administration's settlements with law firms, $940 million of pro bono work was pledged to support causes that President Trump supports? Source: Axios Remember (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Alt 2 ...that over 500 law firms have signed an amicus brief in opposing the Trump administration's executive actions against law firms? Source: NYT Remember (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment 2: @Remember: I really like ALT1 and ALT2; you've outdone yourself. What I don't like, however, is the current state of the nominated article. The excessive quoting seems out of control, for one. The memos and executive orders should be paraphrased and briefly summarized, while also providing direct links to the full content or longer, separate footnotes outside of the main text. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Funny. This was an issue debated on the talk page and I lost because people wanted less full quotes. So I have revised and summarized. Let me know anything else that needs to be done. Remember (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: I wasn't aware of that. I will try and find the discussion. I'm doing a read through now as a prelude to a full review. The lead is exceptionally long and detailed, and while I'm sympathetic and partial to that style myself, I know that others will object to it. I can already see several ways to shorten it; perhaps you should forestall any such objections by attempting to shorten it yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I tend to like longer leads and so I'm happy to let it roll and address it later if others oppose. But if you tell me its a non-starter happy to try to shorten it. Remember (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: You've got odd capitalization in use: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Executive Order(s); Attorney General, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like you fixed these. Remember (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: I think recent changes may have duplicated material. For example, your "Presidential memorandum against Covington & Burling" section has two paragraphs, both of which seem to say the same thing. This issue may have come about through the recent paraphrasing. Just merge the two paragraphs or delete one. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I made temporary fixes to some of the issues. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Please let me know what else I should do since I think you may have fixed it all. Remember (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: Try to go back and see if you can replace quotes with paraphrasing. The Earwig report lights up like a Christmas tree,[1] and while these are, for the most part, false positives, we still want to reduce excessive quoting. I'm never seen Earwig give a 88.5% return before, so I think you should take another look at the article. Having just read it, I know there's excessive quoting related to commentary resembling PR, so start with that. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: Also make sure the hooks up above are all cited here in the nomination and in the article and that the hooks can easily be found in the prose. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you so much for this detailed review! I'm happy to try to make all the improvements noted and I do see other things that could be improved with the article as well. One thing I do have a question about and that is timing. I'm pretty busy in real life and so I don't know if there is a specific deadline for achieving compliance with DYK requirements on this issue. Please let me know and I will try my best to meet the internal deadlines. Thanks again for your help in reviewing the article! I really appreciate your hard work! Remember (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: In the past, timing wasn't as much of an issue, but within the last few months, it has become one, so the sooner you can paraphrase a few quotes here and there, the faster I can tick it off. You should not wait very long. In fact, if you were, let's say, to paraphrase two quotes a day for the next few days, I think that would help. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Sounds good. I will try my best. If it works out, great. If not, such is life. Remember (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I started working on this. Let me know if my edits worked on summarizing quotes. Want to make sure I'm making progress. Remember (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: You're making progress. You've removed just under 10% of the quotes so far. Good job; keep at it! Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: It's looking good. I still think the lead section is way too long. I don't see a good reason to name all the firms and lawyers in the lead. Remember, we are in the business of writing an overview of the subject, not getting into specifics. I think you can boil this all down to two large paragraphs. The important thing to keep in mind is that we are writing for people who know nothing about this subject. Consider how you would gently guide a reader through this maze. You wouldn't confuse them with list after list of firms and attorneys. You might summarize it by giving the number of attorneys and firms who were targeted, and perhaps naming the two most important or newsworthy cases. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: It just occurred to me: there's an easy compromise here. A special infobox on the right side can list all of the cases and parties, leaving the text in the lead to focus on generalities. I've seen this done elsewhere, but it only occurred to me after my second cup of coffee. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That works for me. Do you have a good template to use? Remember (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: See the talk page for the article for a draft infobox Remember (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Check out the page now and see if that solves a lot of the summarization problem. Remember (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: I just did a quick copyedit on the lead, but the rest of the article needs a read through which I can't do until tomorrow. You've cut down on 10-20% of the quotes, which is great, and the infobox looks good. I would say we are getting to the end of the review here. One thing, check the "Reactions" section. It's a bit long in the tooth and could probably be split into subsections. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for the quick turnaround! No need to rush on my account. I'm happy for you to get to it whenever. Mainly just want to be sure I am headed in the right direction. Will work on the Reactions section. Remember (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Made some more changes. Let me know what else I need to work on. Remember (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: Doing a final read-through now. You'll need to add redundant citations to any hanging sentence or paragraph that lacks them. I see a few in the article and I've mentioned it below. Other than that, I think we are done after my read through, but keep in mind, it is expected that you will encounter a lot of resistance elsewhere, so dot your i's and cross your t's because people will come out of the woodwork on this one, you can guarantee it. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Sounds good. I’ll make those remaining changes. I’ll just give it my best shot.Remember (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: This criticism goes a bit beyond DYK, so take it for what it's worth: when I was doing my read-through yesterday, two things stood out. 1) Heavy use of WP:PROSELINE instead of a natural story narrative, discussing how the targeting arose (presumably predates the second admin in some way) and if there are major precedents that informed it (Nixon admin?) The proseline problem is generally common due to breaking news and continuing developments, so it's not that big of a deal right now, but as an article matures, it's recommended to replace proseline with logical narrative that creates a story. Unfortunately, we don't have any additional essays or guidelines on this except for the original essay, so perhaps give that a read. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Agreed. I think with time there will be more materials that put this all in context better and we will have a fuller understanding of the fallout from this. Hopefully it will move to a more well written article then. Remember (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: Once you add the missing citations (or remove the unsourced text), I will consider passing. Consider also fixing the grammar of ALT0, ALT1 and ALT2 with copyedits up above ("... that Paul Weiss committed to $40 million of pro bono legal services in support of the Trump administration's goals to settle executive action against the firm?"; "... that due to the Trump administration's settlements with law firms, $940 million of pro bono work was pledged to support causes that President Trump supports?"; "...that over 500 law firms have signed an amicus brief opposing the Trump administration's executive action against law firms?") Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: The section on "Actions by the Trump administration" appears to be a vestige of your previous lead section. We can't have two lead sections. Figure out a way to make it unique and relevant, otherwise delete it. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: it wasn’t supposed to be a repeat or another lead. It was supposed to be an introduction to the section that follows giving a quick overview of the whole issue. But if that’s not obvious, then it sounds like it’s not working. So we can just delete it since the info is in the info box. So I’ll just delete it. Remember (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A lead section is an "overview", so it's a duplication. I understand what you are trying to convey, that the section in question needs another overview. If you can make that more distinct from the lead, then keep it. As I said elsewhere, one way to reframe this is to provide a brief narrative of the history of the parties involved. This gives a background, some antecedents, and creates a story-like narrative to replace the proseline. Think of it this way: sometimes when we write, we try to force the prose to do what we want. Don't do that. Let the prose itself control the framing. When you look at this section, it naturally is trying to evolve into a background section. Let it do that, don't fight it. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Will do! Thanks! Remember (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I have added the missing citations and revised the hooks as you suggeseted. Let me know what else needs to be done. Remember (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: I will go ahead and pass it. I did remove the two unsourced introductory sentences in two sections, as in a controversial article like this, that will only cause trouble. Also, try to work on bundling or limiting the sources to one cite per sentence. I see some of your sentences and paragraphs have two or more citations. I strive to only use one citation at a time. It's true that sometimes you will need to cite two, but rarely more than that. Also, a good lead section that properly reflects the body doesn't need any citations except for quotes and controversial statements. Just something to think about moving forward. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you so much for the in-depth review of a controversial subject! I really appreciate it! And thank you for edits (which were great and very helpful) and for passing the article! I agree that its nice to have a lead section with no citations but I fear with a controversial subject like this people will want citations for every assertion. I also agree its best just to have one citation per sentence (of course that can't always be done). Will keep that all in mind for the future! Thank you again! Remember (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new and long enough, although approximately more or less of 1/5 of its original prose began at Second presidency of Donald Trump[2] and was used to start this new article at 15:41, 29 March 2025,[3] making it eligible as a fivefold expansion. Article is sourced except for the introductory sentence in the "Actions by the Trump administration" which is a summary of the material that follows. It would be nice to double up the sourcing here for the sake of convention, but the sentence is clearly sourced by what follows. That sentence also writes "Executive Orders" in uppercase, unlike much of the rest of the article. There are little inconsistencies like this here and there. Is the article neutral? That's a tough question to answer. From my POV, I believe the entire article is neutral, but I ran into issues evaluating this problem in the "Reactions" section. To help clear this up, I commented out the material cited to anonymous sources in The Hill and left a message on the talk page. I also grouped the Trump POV together and left it at the bottom, giving the administration the final word (in their own words), which was the style before I edited it. At this point, there are three outstanding issues that I see, two of which may need to be addressed 1) Stability, as the article looks like it is changing day by day. With that said, I believe it meets the bare requirements of WP:DYKCOMPLETE, as there doesn't appear to be any edit warring, and most of the incremental changes involve new additions, mostly reactions and minor developments in terms of pushback, etc. 2) The lead section is somewhat detailed and list-y. I don't believe it needs to be, but the primary author is happy with this style so I'm not going to change it. I do think the lead can be more dense and summarized, but ultimately that's just my opinion. 3) Excessive quotations. This is a tough one. I've mentioned it up above in the comments. The good news is that the author has discussed this problem on the talk page with others and has recently made necessary changes. But I'm not certain the subject needs as many quotes as it currently does, and I would prefer to see a more encyclopedic approach and style that both avoids WP:PROSELINE and makes a significant effort to summarize and paraphrase the quoted material. I suspect that at least half of the current quotes can be eliminated, but I also acknowledge that many of them are important. This is partly a stylistic problem and partly a failure to fit the material into a solid and long-lasting narrative that withstands the days, weeks, and months ahead. I'm sure that will come with time. Finally, the hooks: ALT0 is too long and too controversial; ALT1 needs copyediting; and ALT2 is almost perfect, but I wonder about the use of "in" here and whether it also needs a "the". I would go with ALT2 (with minor changes) but that's just my personal preference. I would like to see slightly more cleanup on the grammar, prose, and excessive quotes before I tick things off. Update: Changes have been made by nom, so passing all hooks, with a preference for ALT2, ALT1, and ALT0, in that order. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

given the highly political nature of this, would this be a case where the wikimedia foundation ought to be contacted prior to promotion?

I have no idea and will defer to others on what needs to be done. Whatever needs to be done works for me and if this can’t be promoted due to various Wikipedia policies, that’s ok too. Remember (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: the foundation would be informed but it's not common to ask permission (i don't know of any case where it's happened). i would want the knowledge of more experienced dyk admins to look over this before promoting though considering the current american administration's um... attitudes.--Plifal (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Completely understand. And happy to have the DYK be more innocuous if that makes more sense. So happy to have other Alts proposed. Remember (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: The delay will lead to your hook timing out and being discarded. It looks like certain people won’t allow this to run. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: well that stinks if true but I understand. It’s a crazy world these days. All you can do is try your best and let the chips fall where they may. Remember (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: Nominate the article for WP:GAN so you can head them off at the pass. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: How would that change anything? Remember (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: A successful GAN allows you to to make a second nomination at DYK if this one fails. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Well, happy to try that if this fails. Also happy to have the article reach GA status anyway. Remember (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Alt 4 ...Bradley Bondi, who is the brother of the Attorney General Pam Bondi, is running for president of the DC Bar? Remember (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Alt 5 ...Congressmen Jamie Raskin and Richard Blumenthal are investigating agreements between the Trump administration and law firms? Remember (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remember: An uncontroversial DYK is one that avoids BLPs. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Open to any proposals. Here are some more innocuous ones. Remember (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Alt 6...the DC Bar has the power to decide who gets to be barred to practice within the District of Columbia as a lawyer and the current executive has suggested potential disciplinary actions against some lawyers?

Alt 7...that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters on March 17, 2025, to twenty law firms, demanding information about their employment practices?

Does anyone know where targeting academic institutions goes?

Princeton's US grants frozen, follows Trump actions against other schools 1101 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a section about it in the article on Trump's second presidency. That could also be turned into its own article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Potentially useful document

This spreadsheet was put together by a group of law students, categorizing a large number of law firms by their responses to the targeting. It's intended as an information source for law students who are deciding where to do internships / for graduates thinking about which firms they might want to work for, but in a number of cases, the "response" column identifies a news source discussing the firm's response. The categories in the spreadsheet (e.g., Caved to the Administration, Complying in Advance) definitely make it a biased source, but I figured I'd post it here in case anyone wants to see whether they've identified news sources that can support additional information for the article. In some cases, there are also archived copies of firms' DEI pages, making it possible to see see changes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! Hopefully a reliable source will also publish something like this that we can cite to. Remember (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

5 more deals

More deals have been announced with several firms and should be added to the article. I’m busy right now but will add later if no one else can get to it. link. Remember (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

No mention of the 65 Project or Law Works

This article is bereft of any balance. Case in point, if you are going to talk about Perkins Cole then you need to also include the history of the firm as well as the activities of the 65 Project and Law Works as well as the folowing: Attorney Michael Teter is the managing director of the 65 Project. He was previously a general counsel for Represent.Us, a left-of-center campaign finance regulation group, and an assistant attorney general in Utah. From 2006-2008, Teter was a litigation associate at Perkins Coie, a law firm with close ties to the Democratic National Committee. Prior. He was worked as the Wisconsin state field director for the presidential campaign of John Kerry (D-MA) and managed the Senatorial campaign of former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). Early in his career, Teter served as the deputy finance director of the California Democratic Party. What including the information does is put the actions into context not in a vacuum. Many of the firms mentioned have actively used lawfare to target political enemies.

It seems to me you may have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. It does not come up with original analysis of a situation but instead restates and summarizes what reliable sources have said about a notable issue in the world. Even if you were correct in all your analysis it wouldn’t matter to what we can say because it would be original research. What you need to do if you want information to be contributed to the article is find reliable sources that assert something you think is notable that is relevant to this article and then that information can be included with attribution. I hope that helped make things more clear. Thank you for your input.Remember (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The other problem with the allegation of lawfare by the OP here, is that it isn’t a fact but more of an opinion by the Trump admin. Others have classified these allegations as false. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Title in italics

Anyone know why this article's title appears in italics? Or is it just my browser or something? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Just you. Remember (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed Special:Diff/1287016006. Ringo62 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I can't figure out why it was like that in the first place? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it was because the article uses Template:Infobox court case which automatically sets the title to italics as it assumes it is the name of a case. Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

AG letter

This seems like something worth a sentence in this article [4]. Don’t have time to find a secondary reliable source to add this info right now is someone else wants to get to it. Remember (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of anonymous sources cited to The Hill

I commented out the two anonymous quotes in the "Reactions" section. The material is still in the article, but it's not visible. I am currently doing a DYK review and I can't see myself passing it with that material. Perhaps others will chime in and disagree. Either way, I wanted to make a note of my edits here. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind saying more about why that's a red line for you? It strikes me that one of the significant and intended effects of Trump's actions is to chill criticism. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Several reasons. The first reason is that the article currently has an excessive number of quotations. The Earwig report is higher than 88%, which to be honest, I've never seen that high before. This means every effort should be made to cut down on quotations. Second reason is that I can't for the life of me remember the last time we used anonymous sources like this. It just isn't done on Wikipedia. Sure, there are historical topic areas where anonymous sources are referred to, almost always paraphrased, when the writer or journalists are authoritative and the publication is highly reliable. I don't see that here at all. Those are two reasons, there are more. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the anonymous sources in the reactions sections. Early on with this issue it was harder to find certain stated positions from named sources but I think we can now switch out any anonymous source for a named source. So unless anyone else feels differently, I am happy to remove these. Remember (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox per DYK review

In an attempt to respond to DYK suggestion, I am trying to make an infobox that makes sense for this article. The draft infobox is below. Please feel free to improve. Remember (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved the infobox to the main page. Feel free to discuss the infobox here. Remember (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The infobox looks quite handy. Perhaps a few editing suggestion? I've added an edited draft below the original, possibly useful.Lindenfall (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice! I liked yours better. Feel free to add or I can. Remember (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a few other alternatives, though I'm not sure that any of them are improvements. I don't have any experience using the general infobox template, and it may be that I've done something kludgy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I like the last one the best. Feel free to put that one in if you agree. Also happy to discuss or revise further. Remember (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox draft

Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration

Date	February 2025 (2025-02)
Target	Firms specifically targeted with memo or EO: Covington & Burling Jenner & Block Paul Weiss Perkins Coie Susman WilmerHale Elias Law Group Attorneys specifically targeted in memo or EO: Alvin Bragg Norman Eisen Marc Elias Letitia James Peter Koski Lisa Monaco Mark Pomerantz James Quarles Jack Smith Andrew Weissmann Mark Zaid Aaron Zebley
Outcome	$940 million pro bono promised: Paul Weiss:$40 million Milbank:$100 million Skadden:$100 million Willkie:$100 million Cadwalader:$100 million Kirkland:$125 million Latham:$125 million A&O Shearman:$125 million Simpson Thacher & Bartlett:$125 million
Litigation	Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ Zaid v. Executive Office of the President Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ Wilmer v. Executive Office of President Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President

Trump Administration targeting of lawyers and law firms

Date	February 2025 (2025-02)
Target	Firms targeted by EO or memo: Covington & Burling Jenner & Block Paul Weiss Perkins Coie Susman WilmerHale Elias Law Group Attorneys targeted by EO or memo: Alvin Bragg Norman Eisen Marc Elias Letitia James Peter Koski Lisa Monaco Mark Pomerantz James Quarles Jack Smith Andrew Weissmann Mark Zaid Aaron Zebley
Participants	Executive Office of the President; Donald Trump; DOJ; EEOC
Outcome	Litigation by some attorneys and firms. Firms that made a deal pledged $940 million in pro bono service: Paul Weiss:$40 million Milbank:$100 million Skadden:$100 million Willkie:$100 million Cadwalader:$100 million Kirkland:$125 million Latham:$125 million A&O Shearman:$125 million Simpson Thacher & Bartlett:$125 million
Litigation	Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ Zaid v. Executive Office of the President Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ Wilmer v. Executive Office of the President Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President

Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration

	Dates: February-April, 2025
	Firms specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Covington & Burling * Jenner & Block * Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison * Perkins Coie * Susman Godfrey * Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr * Elias Law Group
	Attorneys specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Alvin Bragg * Norman Eisen * Marc Elias * Letitia James * Peter Koski * Lisa Monaco * Mark Pomerantz * James Quarles * Jack Smith * Andrew Weissmann * Mark Zaid * Aaron Zebley
	Litigation:
	Jenner & Block LLP v. Department of Justice * Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice * Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President * Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. Executive Office of President * Zaid v. Executive Office of the President
	$940 million pro bono services promised:
	A&O Shearman: $125 million * Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: $100 million * Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million * Latham & Watkins: $125 million * Milbank: $100 million * Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison: $40 million * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: $125 million * Skadden: $100 million * Willkie Farr & Gallagher: $100 million

Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration

	Dates: February-April, 2025
	Firms specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Covington & Burling Jenner & Block Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Perkins Coie Susman Godfrey Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Elias Law Group
	Attorneys specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Alvin Bragg Norman Eisen Marc Elias Letitia James Peter Koski Lisa Monaco Mark Pomerantz James Quarles Jack Smith Andrew Weissmann Mark Zaid Aaron Zebley
	Litigation:
	Jenner & Block LLP v. Department of Justice Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of     the President Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v.     Executive Office of President Zaid v. Executive Office of the President
	$940 million pro bono services promised:
	A&O Shearman: $125 million Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: $100 million Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million Latham & Watkins: $125 million Milbank: $100 million Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison:     $40 million Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: $125 million Skadden: $100 million Willkie Farr & Gallagher: $100 million

Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration

	Dates: February-April, 2025
	Firms specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Covington & Burling Jenner & Block Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Perkins Coie Susman Godfrey Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr Elias Law Group
	Attorneys specifically targeted by a presidential memo or executive order:
	Alvin Bragg Norman Eisen Marc Elias Letitia James Peter Koski Lisa Monaco Mark Pomerantz James Quarles Jack Smith Andrew Weissmann Mark Zaid Aaron Zebley
	Litigation:
	Jenner & Block LLP v. Department of Justice Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. Executive Office of President Zaid v. Executive Office of the President
	$940 million pro bono services promised:
	A&O Shearman: $125 million Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: $100 million Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million Latham & Watkins: $125 million Milbank: $100 million Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison: $40 million Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: $125 million Skadden: $100 million Willkie Farr & Gallagher: $100 million

New info to add

Bloomberg has info on Jenner attorneys being blocked. Will add when I can but if others want to add if first, feel free. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/jenner-says-justice-department-pulled-lawyer-security-clearance Remember (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Remember (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles to incorporate

Interesting news article for anyone to incorporate. I’ll get to it when I can. [https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2025/05/14/ex-associates-say-trump-deals-render-big-law-leaders-unfit-for-board-positions-launch-campaign-for-their-removal-/?slreturn=2025051915107 Remember (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Remember (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

And another pertinent article to be incorporated - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/politics/law-firms-trump-above-the-law.html Remember (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are a couple of others:

• https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-law-firms--deals-with-trump-are-even-riskier-than-they-seem
• https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/new-york-law-firm-cadwalader-wickersham-taft-trump-10a87928 (non-paywalled here)

FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

And now we have the defense letters from the law firms that made deals to Congress- [5]. Anyone feel free to add. I’ll try to get it it someday. Remember (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Goodwin and EEOC

More developments on EEOC issue [6]. Remember (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. Remember (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

another article

More info to be incorporated at some point. [7]. Remember (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

and another [8]. Remember (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

And another about the departure of a Paul Weiss attorney NY Times article. Remember (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Bulleted lists in the infobox

@Aadirulez8, the edit you made changed the bulleted lists from left-justified to center-justified. It really doesn't look good with center justification. Is there a way to get it left-justified that's consistent with whatever syntax concerns led you to change it? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree that it looks much worse now.Remember (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Lists are now left-aligned at least Erp (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)