The Justice Department has disclosed subpoenas seeking records and depositions from 14 major law firms over their communications involving President Donald Trump's executive orders, the American Bar Association and longtime Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. The demands emerged in a federal lawsuit in Washington challenging what the ABA describes as an administration campaign to pressure law firms over their clients, political ties and diversity programs.
The subpoenas cover firms that were targeted by White House directives as well as firms that reached agreements with the administration rather than challenge those measures in court. The records sought include communications dating to the beginning of Trump's second term and exchanges involving Epshteyn, who has been described in news reports as an intermediary in negotiations between the White House and some firms.
The disclosure adds a new layer to the ABA's lawsuit, filed last year over what the association calls a "law firm intimidation policy." The organization argues that the administration used executive authority to threaten firms' access to federal buildings, government contracts and security clearances, creating pressure to avoid clients or cases opposed by the White House.
Trump issued executive orders in early 2025 targeting more than five law firms connected to investigations, cases or political figures he opposed. Several firms fought those orders in court and prevailed, while others negotiated settlements that reportedly included commitments to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal services.
That divide between firms that resisted and those that settled has become central to the litigation. Records of the negotiations could clarify whether the agreements were voluntary resolutions or were reached under the threat of losing government business and other federal privileges.
The Justice Department is seeking communications related to the executive orders, including exchanges between the firms and Epshteyn. It also requested records of any discussions the firms had with the ABA concerning Epshteyn and the administration's actions.
The ABA has sought similar information, arguing that the communications could show how the settlements were negotiated and whether White House officials or advisers used government power to extract concessions. The association contends that the alleged policy has harmed its members by discouraging firms from accepting clients whose interests conflict with the administration.
At the same time, the Justice Department has moved to restrict the ABA's attempt to obtain records directly from Epshteyn. According to reports, the department asked a federal judge in New York to block the association's request, arguing that it could intrude on protected communications.
The department's position is that the ABA should pursue relevant documents from its member firms rather than from a presidential adviser. The subpoenas to the 14 firms appear designed in part to reinforce that argument by directing discovery toward the organizations that participated in the disputed negotiations.
The legal fight could expose more detail about the role Epshteyn played in the agreements. Although he has long advised Trump, he has not held a formal White House position during much of his work and has often operated as a political and legal intermediary around the president.
Four firms that challenged Trump's executive orders have already obtained favorable court rulings, according to the reporting cited in the original account. Other firms chose settlements, accepting obligations that allowed them to avoid the restrictions imposed through the directives.
The ABA is asking the court to halt the broader policy and prevent the administration from reviving or extending it. Its lawsuit argues that punishing firms for previous representations, internal diversity practices or associations with Trump's adversaries undermines access to counsel and threatens the independence of the legal profession.
