FOIAengine: Heritage’s Oversight Project Probes Law Firm Ties to Biden
Amid President Trump’s recent high-profile efforts to punish or extract concessions from major law firms, a second front, much less publicized, has opened, with organizers of Project 2025 using the Freedom of Information Act to track prior contacts between at least two dozen major law firms and former Biden Administration officials.
The FOIA requests from the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project target the same Big Law firms that the Trump Administration is going after. In an interesting twist, even as it investigates ties between the Biden Administration and Big Law, Heritage’s Oversight Project has written letters asking those same major law firms to allocate tens of millions of dollars in pro bono legal services to Heritage and its favored conservative causes.
Heritage’s FOIA requests about Big Law began showing up earlier this month in PoliScio Analytics’ competitive-intelligence database FOIAengine, which tracks FOIA requests in as close to real-time as their availability allows. We’ve created a database of the latest Project 2025 FOIA requests and made it freely available for searching on our home page. For more context about how Heritage uses FOIA, see our January 22 story, “How Project 2025 Targets Pentagon Leadership.”
Heritage’s latest FOIA requests, which haven’t previously been reported, ask for “all communications to/from the email domains” of 24 Big Law firms and 252 former Biden Administration officials at various agencies and departments, for the timeframe of January 20, 2021 through January 19, 2025. Thus far, such requests have been logged in FOIAengine from the departments of Interior and Transportation, and the Federal Trade Commission – just three of the 43 agencies and departments FOIAengine monitors. We’ll continue to update the list as more agencies report.
On its website, Heritage boasts that its Oversight Project is involved in “investigative and legal work . . . to expose corruption and weaponization.” Heritage says its Oversight Project has filed “over 100,000 FOIA requests and nearly 100 lawsuits.” The requests about Big Law represent only a fraction of that FOIA blizzard, but most agencies haven’t yet released their March logs.
Heritage’s FOIA requests are extensions of its previous efforts – also using FOIA – to identify loyalists in the executive branch. So far, the list of scrutinized former officials maps closely to the tally of 1,407 officials we previously identified as the subject of Project 2025 pre-election FOIA requests aimed at identifying Biden sympathizers. What’s different in this round of requests is the focus on Big Law.
Heritage’s efforts leverage the attacks on major law firms that President Trump began at the start of his second term. Starting in late February, Trump issued a series of punitive executive orders and directives that targeted law firms with ties to people and matters adverse to him.
In this article, we’ll look first at the highlights of Trump’s months-long campaign against Big Law, which resulted in firms committing to provide nearly a billion dollars of pro bono representation to causes that Trump supports. After that, we’ll review how the Heritage Foundation, the organizer of Project 2025, appears to be keeping the pressure campaign going.
Heritage did not reply to our questions about its actions.
The first shot in Trump’s attack on his perceived enemies in Big Law was fired on February 25, when Trump directed various agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Departments of Defense, Justice and Energy, to cancel security clearances and government contracts with Washington-based Covington & Burling. Trump’s enmity derived from a Covington partner’s representation of Jack Smith, the special counsel in the Trump classified documents case. After Pam Bondi was confirmed as attorney general, she placed Smith under investigation by a Justice Department “weaponization working group” scrutinizing the work of Smith as well as “unethical prosecutions” of January 6 rioters. Covington partner Peter Koski, a former war crimes prosecutor, has been serving as Smith’s personal lawyer during the investigation.
Here’s the full text of Trump’s February 25 directive seeking to punish Covington & Burling. The president signed the directive in front of reporters in the Oval Office, and offered to send the pen he used to Jack Smith:
SUBJECT: Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
I hereby direct the Attorney General and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel, pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process. I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Additionally, if any of the covered Covington & Burling LLP members, partners, and employees referenced in this memorandum obtained a security clearance from an agency not included as an addressee of this memorandum, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall provide this memorandum to the appropriate clearance-granting agency to ensure compliance.
I further direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue a memorandum to all agencies to review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP. To the extent permitted by applicable law, heads of agencies shall align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Although Covington doesn’t have any federal contracts, the white-shoe firm is one of many with a lucrative D.C. practice focused on representing corporate clients – and being blacklisted by the government can only be bad for business. Thus, when Trump issued his first in a series of punitive executive orders – against megafirm Paul, Weiss – it signaled the seriousness of his intent, and set off what became a scramble among some firms to settle up. Trump’s executive order name-checked a former Paul, Weiss lawyer, Mike Pomerantz, who worked on the Manhattan district attorney’s hush-money prosecution against Trump. The president also implicated the firm for helping the D.C. attorney general in a case against the January 6 Capitol rioters.
Here is a portion of Trump’s March 14 executive order, titled “Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss”:
My Administration has already taken action to address some of the significant risks and egregious conduct associated with law firms, and I have determined that similar action is necessary to end Government sponsorship of harmful activity by an additional law firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.
In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.
Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.
The action against Paul, Weiss had a typically Trumpian outcome: a deal was soon reached after a White House meeting with the firm’s chairman. Paul, Weiss, with over $2 billion in annual revenue, agreed to provide $40 million worth of legal work to support Trump-favored causes. Other law firms that fell into line later would end up paying much more. Firms that refused to negotiate faced presidential orders and directives calling for suspension of their lawyers’ security clearances, reassessment of government contracts, and/or federal investigations.
The day after Trump issued an executive order revoking the punishment against Paul, Weiss, he signed a memorandum titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court.” Trump’s March 22 memorandum sought, among other things, to settle a score with Trump’s 2016 election rival, Hillary Clinton. Excerpts follow:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.
Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier. . . .
I further direct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years. If the Attorney General identifies misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney, termination of any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services, or any other appropriate actions.
Trump’s pressure campaign paid off, as some targeted law firms quickly fell into line and agreed to provide legal services valued at as much as $125 million per firm over four years, with all the legal work devoted to Trump-supported causes.
Using the threats and punishments in his executive orders as leverage, Trump has thus far secured at least $940 million in pro bono services from nine Big Law firms, with firms that settled later generally committing to higher amounts. Four firms that refused settlement deals were subjected to punitive executive orders, after which the firms filed suit to have the punishments overturned.
Here’s a rundown of the nine Big Law firms that have settled, and the value of legal services they committed to providing to Trump’s causes:
Kirkland & Ellis: $125 million
Latham & Watkins: $125 million
A&O Sherman: $125 million
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: $125 million
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: $100 million
Skadden, Arps: $100 million
Milbank: $100 million
Willkie Farr & Gallagher: $100 million
Paul, Weiss: $ 40 million
As to Kirkland, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher, and Latham & Watkins, @realDonaldTrump announced on Truth Social that each would provide free legal work for causes including veterans affairs and combatting anti-Semitism. As part of the agreement, Trump agreed to withdraw letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanding information about whether the firms were engaged in discriminatory hiring practices. Terms agreed to by the others are presumed to be substantially similar.
Trump apparently has continued to press other law firms to make similar settlements. Four firms that resisted soon were targeted in punitive executive orders (click the links to see the orders). Those firms – Susman Godfrey, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale – now are among at least 284 other plaintiffs that have suits pending to overturn various Trump executive actions. You can track all those lawsuits here.
Trump has hinted that he views the law firm settlements as a flexible legal resource to be directed toward whatever causes or projects he chooses – including, potentially, personal or political interests. And he has posted on his Truth Social that he isn’t done with his campaign to end “weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession. The President will not stop fighting until we have ended Partisan Lawfare in the United States of America, and restored Liberty and Justice for ALL.”
Earlier this week, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services announced an investigation of the Harvard Law Review, alleging that the Review discriminates against contributors on the basis of race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s what the officials said in a press release:
“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “Title VI’s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. No institution—no matter its pedigree, prestige, or wealth—is above the law. The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone’s civil rights.”
“Law journal membership and publication are crucial achievements that build momentum for law students’ careers and shape legal scholarship,” said Anthony Archeval, Acting Director of HHS Office for Civil Rights. “This investigation reflects the Administration’s common-sense understanding that these opportunities should be earned through merit-based standards and not race.”
Heritage Leverages Trump’s Efforts: One indication as to which other Big Law firms might still be in Trump’s crosshairs comes from the FOIA requests that began to be filed within days of the settlements by the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project.
Heritage’s list of Big Law FOIA targets isn’t limited to firms that have thus far received punishments from Trump or made settlements with him.
In addition to the law firms that Trump has already settled with or targeted for punishment, Heritage’s FOIA requests also seek contacts during the four years of the Biden presidency between various named Biden officials and anyone using the email domains of Cooley, Debevoise & Plimpton, Elias, Freshfields, Goodwin, Hogan Lovells, Morrison & Foerster, McDermott Will & Emery, Reed Smith, Ropes & Gray, and Williams & Connolly.
FOIA requests to the federal government can be an important early warning of bad publicity, litigation to come, or uncertainties to be hedged and gamed out. In this case, if the FOIA documents revealed notable contacts between the targeted law firms and top Democrats, the threat of disclosure could induce more settlements.
The Big Law agreements announced so far require the targeted firms to disavow what Trump has described as “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations in their hiring – and to agree to accept clients without regard to political beliefs.
That is where the Heritage Foundation saw an opportunity.
Although the extent to which Heritage may be coordinating its actions with the White House is unknown, the conservative think tank almost immediately began using Trump’s pressure campaign on Big Law to advance its own interests.
According to Bloomberg Law, Mike Howell, the executive director of the Oversight Project, sent letters to at least “several” of the major law firms that settled with Trump.
“In light of these important developments,” Howell wrote, “we request that your firm join us in helping return the legal industry to normalcy where firms once again represent clients of all ideological backgrounds.”
According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Howell’s letter asked the firms to provide at least $10 million in pro bono legal help to the Oversight Project and its “center-right” allies on matters such as “challenges to regulatory and state overreach and defense against partisan lawfare.”
In return, the letter said, “we are prepared to publicly acknowledge your firm’s contribution to restoring balance in the legal landscape.” Bloomberg said it was not clear whether Trump Administration officials were aware of the letter.
Heritage, which spearheaded Project 2025 as a blueprint for Trump’s sweeping overhaul of the executive branch, announced on March 31 that it was spinning out its Oversight Project as a separate, but related, entity to “continue its investigative and legal work, as well as expand into new realms at the state and local levels to expose corruption and weaponization. It will be set up as a 501(c)(4) organization to implement new strategies to execute its critical mission.”
FOIAengine access now is available for all professional members of Investigative Reporters and Editors, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of journalism. IRE is the world’s oldest and largest association of investigative journalists. Following the federal government’s shutdown of FOIAonline.gov last year, FOIAengine is the only source for the most comprehensive, fully searchable archive of FOIA requests across dozens of federal departments and agencies. FOIAengine has more robust functionality and searching capabilities, and standardizes data from different agencies to make it easier to work with. PoliScio Analytics is proud to be partnering with IRE to provide this valuable content to investigative reporters worldwide.
To see all the requests mentioned in this article, log in or sign up to become a FOIAengine user.
Next: News media requests to the SEC, FTC, and FDA.
John A. Jenkins, co-creator of FOIAengine, is a Washington journalist and publisher whose work has appeared in The New York Times Magazine, GQ, and elsewhere. He is a four-time recipient of the American Bar Association’s Gavel Award Certificate of Merit for his legal reporting and analysis. His most recent book is The Partisan: The Life of William Rehnquist. Jenkins founded Law Street Media in 2013. Prior to that, he was President of CQ Press, the textbook and reference publishing enterprise of Congressional Quarterly. FOIAengine is a product of PoliScio Analytics (PoliScio.com), a new venture specializing in U.S. political and governmental research, co-founded by Jenkins and Washington lawyer Randy Miller. Learn more about FOIAengine here. To review FOIA requests mentioned in this article, subscribe to FOIAengine.
Write to John A. Jenkins at JAJ@PoliScio.com.
