JD Vance’s Complex Position in Trump’s Legal Firm Crackdown

Ben Thomson, Senior LawFuel editor

In the Trump White House where executive power and the legal profession have collided with unprecedented force, Vice President JD Vance occupies a particularly complex position, but why has he been largely silent on the issue?

A Yale Law graduate and former litigation attorney at Sidley Austin, Vance now serves as second-in-command to a president waging a controversial campaign against some of America’s most prominent law firms.

Yet amid the legal community’s growing alarm, the Vice President’s voice on this specific issue has remained notably measured—even as his broader statements on executive authority suggest tacit support for the administration’s approach.

The Administration’s Legal Battlefield

Since March 2025, the administration has issued directives against firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and others—suspending security clearances, canceling government contracts, and restricting access to federal buildings. The orders specifically target firms that represented clients opposed to Trump or employed attorneys who investigated his previous administration.

Some firms have challenged these orders in court, with federal judges temporarily blocking enforcement of certain provisions.

Others, like Paul Weiss, have reached controversial settlements with the administration, agreeing to provide millions in pro bono legal services for causes supported by Trump – several hundred million dollars in pro bono services.

The response from the broader legal community culminated in a brief signed by over 500 firms opposing the orders as “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself”.

Vance’s Position: Judicial Deference and Executive Authority

While Vance has not directly addressed the specific targeting of law firms, his broader statements on executive power provide insight into his perspective.

In February, following judicial challenges to administration policies, Vance posted on social media that “Judges should not have the power to dictate the legitimate authority of the executive branch”.

This statement aligns with the administration’s assertion that its actions against law firms fall within presidential prerogative.

The Vice President’s background as a litigation attorney creates an intriguing tension in his current role. As someone who practiced at Sidley Austin, Vance understands the professional obligations attorneys have to zealously represent clients regardless of political alignment, the very principle now under pressure from the administration he serves.

The Usha Vance Conundrum

Adding another layer of complexity is the position of Vance’s wife, Usha Chilukuri Vance, a former trial lawyer at Munger Tolles & Olson.

While she stepped down from her role when her husband was selected as Trump’s running mate in July 2024, her former firm has since joined the legal resistance against the administration’s actions. In April 2025, Munger Tolles filed a brief on behalf of more than 500 law firms warning of the “grave threat” posed by Trump’s executive orders.

Th Munger Tolles situation opposing the Trump orders creates a remarkable situation where the Vice President’s former professional community and his wife’s former colleagues stand in direct opposition to policies he is at least tacitly supporting.

The question that can be asked is what this apparent personal-professional divide raises questions about Vance’s private views on the matter?

The Strategic Silence

What makes Vance’s position particularly interesting is his selective engagement on legal matters. While willing to question judicial authority broadly, he has refrained from specifically addressing the law firm controversy, which may be a recognition of his uncomfortable stance balancing his role as a constitutional officer and his identity as a member of the legal profession.

One clue possibly providing an answer to his real position on a matter that is tormenting the legal profession is his ‘strategic silence’.

It’s different from other administration officials who have vigorously defended the executive orders.

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, has explicitly framed the orders as “lawful directives aimed at ensuring the implementation of [the president’s] agenda and compliance with the law by law firms”.

The Justice Department has initiated “an immediate review of law firms involved in inappropriate activities and weaponized legal tactics”.

The Broader Implications

The administration’s campaign against law firms is more than retribution, but it may also work to reshape the relationship between the executive branch and the legal profession.

Law firms are caught in a precarious position: even if they successfully challenge these orders in court, they risk losing clients who fear association with firms deemed hostile by the administration.

As Nunziata, a former general counsel to Senator Marco Rubio, noted: “What makes this situation so insidious is that even if the law firms challenging these executive orders are successful in court, which is likely, they will have incurred significant expenses and may lose clients for the foreseeable future”.

The Unanswered Question for Vance

The question remains as to JD Vance’s postition.

Does his silence reflect agreement with the administration’s approach, a strategic decision to maintain influence within the White House, or perhaps a more complicated internal conflict?

There is little doubt that his silence on the matter is one that will be costing him dearly by many in his former profession.

Balancing legal ethics with political expediency is never easy. Even for JD Vance, the lawyer, the need to become JD Vance, the Politician, is an overriding role that has seen a major ethical issue sidelined.

As the legal battles continue through the courts there is now an unprecedented confrontation between presidential power and the legal profession with JD Vance silent, but also somehow at its center.