As the 2026 midterm elections approach, several prominent law firms appear reluctant to engage in high-profile legal battles against former President Donald Trump and his administration, raising concerns among voting rights advocates about the legal community’s capacity to counter potential election interference.
Norm Eisen, a longtime leader in legal efforts to hold Trump accountable, described the shift with disappointment. Previously, Eisen frequently worked with Brad Karp, chair of the firm Paul Weiss, which provided extensive pro bono legal support to challenges against Trump’s policies and actions. Eisen credited Karp and the firm as key champions of voting rights and democracy. However, Paul Weiss, now one of nine firms that entered into agreements with the Trump administration in early 2025, has largely stepped back from such litigation efforts, according to Eisen and attorneys familiar with the matter.
These firms negotiated deals with the administration agreeing to provide nearly $1 billion in legal services on causes defended by Trump, prompting questions about their willingness to oppose the former president openly. Public records and interviews with legal experts show that few of these firms have taken visible roles in legal efforts aimed at preventing Trump or his allies from influencing the electoral process, particularly amid a rise in litigations designed to sow doubt about election outcomes.
The hesitancy extends beyond firms with formal agreements. Some top-tier firms that declined to partner with the Trump administration have also avoided politically sensitive voting rights cases, reportedly out of concern about potential retaliation. This “chilling effect,” according to interviews with civil rights lawyers, has led to diminished legal support for organizations working to protect election integrity.
John Powers, legal director at the civil rights group Advancement Project, described a significant decline in law firm backing for voting rights cases connected to the administration. He noted that many firms have explicitly stated they no longer take on such work or do so only under conditions of anonymity to shield themselves from public scrutiny. When the Advancement Project recently sued the Department of Justice over election monitoring policies, it had to proceed without private law firm partners, highlighting the extent of the reticence in the legal sector.
Historically, law firms have been instrumental in advancing civil rights and election protections, often volunteering legal resources for complex litigation and on-the-ground election day support. Firms such as Paul Weiss have long cited landmark voting rights cases in their histories and promoted their involvement in defending democratic processes. However, since striking its deal with Trump in March 2025, Paul Weiss has removed much of its public-facing material related to voting rights, and the firm declined to provide examples of ongoing election-related work opposing the administration.
The shift is attributed in part to firms perceiving such cases as financial or reputational liabilities in the current political climate. This contrasts with Trump’s first term, when firms engaged more freely in opposition efforts without apparent cost.
Nevertheless, new alliances have emerged outside traditional large firms. Eisen and other attorneys have helped build a diverse network of pro-democracy advocates, nonprofit legal organizations, public interest law groups, and select high-profile firms such as WilmerHale, which have resisted the administration’s executive orders and election-related litigation strategies.
As the midterms approach, the evolving legal landscape underscores both the challenges and adaptation within the legal profession in addressing concerns over electoral integrity and government accountability.