Nine BigLaw Firms Provide $1 Billion Pro Bono Under Trump Settlement Amid Legal Challenges

President Trump's agreements with major law firms, which involve commitments to provide pro bono legal services, have been criticized by legal experts as lacking legal validity due to the absence of a clear "meeting of the minds." These deals, announced publicly by Trump, have been described by Yale Law School's Harold Hongju Koh as contracts made "with a gun to your head," highlighting the coercive nature of the agreements. The firms initially agreed to offer pro bono help to veterans but the scope has since expanded to other areas such as trade, immigration enforcement, and defending police officers, generating ambiguity and internal conflict. Some firms, like Skadden, have faced public backlash from Trump supporters who misinterpret the agreements as obligations to handle individual cases brought directly to them, leading to challenges in balancing the commitments with firm autonomy and staff expectations. Despite criticism and legal challenges, several firms have defended these deals as ethical and necessary to avoid punitive actions from the Trump administration, including loss of security clearances and government contracts. Meanwhile, firms opposing Trump's actions have successfully contested some executive orders in court, indicating ongoing legal battles between the administration and the legal industry.