Donald Trump has been known to use his power in aggressive and sometimes intimidating ways, especially when it comes to people or organizations that oppose him. In a recent situation, he’s been targeting well-known law firms that have taken legal positions or represented clients in ways he didn’t like.
These firms include Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, Covington & Burling, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. Instead of challenging them in court or debating them in public, Trump has gone after their businesses directly, using executive orders and public pressure to hurt their ability to operate.
This isn’t just political hardball it may actually be criminal behavior. What Trump is doing looks very much like extortion. Extortion usually means threatening someone to get something in return.
In this case, Trump didn’t demand money, but he did threaten to damage these firms’ businesses if they didn’t stop taking legal actions he didn’t like. His message was pretty clear: keep opposing me, and your business will suffer. For example, firms feared they would lose access to government work or that Trump would use his position to block their deals and relationships with government agencies. This kind of pressure is illegal, and in New York, it falls under a law called “coercion.”
Under New York law, coercion in the third degree happens when someone uses threats to make another person do something (or stop doing something) they have every legal right to do. The threat could involve damaging their property, hurting their career, ruining their reputation, or using a public position to harm them.
This is exactly what Trump did to Paul, Weiss. The firm had a legal right to represent clients and take cases, but Trump threatened them in ways that made it too risky to keep going. He didn’t have to break into their offices or steal anything just the threat of losing their access to government and their standing in the business world was enough to push them into backing down.
This kind of coercion might seem subtle, but it can be incredibly powerful. Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, wrote a letter explaining why the firm gave in to Trump’s pressure. He said that even if the firm won a lawsuit against the government, it wouldn’t matter.
The damage would already be done. The firm would be seen as being against the administration and would lose the ability to work with government agencies, which are essential for many of their clients. Karp explained that the firm had to think about what was best for the people it represents. In the end, they decided it wasn’t worth the risk to fight back.
This shows that the firm wasn’t just scared of losing a legal case—they were scared of what Trump could do to them by misusing his power. That fear, according to New York law, might actually rise to the level of first-degree coercion, which is a felony. First-degree coercion involves not just threats, but actually making the victim afraid of serious harm—whether to their business, their safety, or their financial future. This kind of charge is more serious and carries prison time. The law doesn’t require the person making the threat to personally benefit. It’s enough that they use fear to control others, and that’s exactly what seems to have happened here.
So, should Alvin Bragg, the New York district attorney, take this case to a grand jury? There are two legal obstacles in the way. First, the Department of Justice has said in the past that a sitting president can’t be indicted, but there is no clear law that says this. Some experts believe a president can be charged with a crime, even if the trial has to wait until they’re out of office. Second, there’s a recent Supreme Court case—Trump v. United States—that gives the president some protection for actions taken as part of their official duties. Trump might try to argue that his actions were official presidential decisions, not personal revenge. But even if the court accepts that argument, it doesn’t change the fact that what he did looks very much like criminal behavior.
Still, these legal questions shouldn’t stop Bragg from moving forward. This is not a normal situation. When a president uses the power of the government to punish political enemies and scare others into silence, it’s a sign that the rule of law is under serious threat. Political scientists call this kind of system a “competitive authoritarian” regime—where elections still happen, but the system is rigged in favor of the people in power. In countries like Hungary, Venezuela, and Turkey, leaders have used their control over the courts, media, and government institutions to stay in power and punish opponents. Scholars have said that Trump has been moving the United States in that direction. And this was before he began undermining government agencies, bypassing Congress, punishing federal workers, and trying to silence critics.
The United States is facing a constitutional crisis. If the law is going to mean anything, it has to be applied equally—even to former presidents. If Trump broke the law by using threats and government power to punish law firms, then he should be held accountable. A grand jury is not a political group—it’s made up of regular citizens who decide if there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime. If they look at what Trump did and decide to indict him, it will show that the justice system is still working.
Some people might say, “What’s the point? Trump will just say it’s all politics.” But that’s not the point. The point is that an indictment is a legal statement that says: we believe a crime may have been committed, and we’re going to investigate it properly. If Trump thinks the system is unfair, he can take it to trial. That’s what everyone else has to do. He just doesn’t want to—because a real trial could reveal even more damaging facts.
An indictment wouldn’t just be symbolic. It would be a powerful message that no one is above the law. If Trump ever tries to attack other organizations in the future—whether they’re law firms, schools, or charities—this indictment would stand as a warning. It would remind everyone that misusing presidential power can come with consequences.
Most of all, it would show that the rule of law is still alive. And in a time when so many people fear that it’s slipping away, that would be a very big deal.
