Introduction
In an article published on May 27, 2025, CNBC reports that a federal judge struck down an executive order issued by President Donald Trump targeting the high-profile law firm WilmerHale. The article highlights strong judicial opposition to the order while making several significant factual claims surrounding the nature and legality of the directive. One user asked us directly: Did the executive order instruct federal agencies to terminate contracts with WilmerHale? We’ve verified this and other key points to ensure our readers get the full, clear picture.
Historical Context
Since his election campaigns and through both terms as president, Donald Trump has frequently criticized legal institutions and individuals he perceives as political opponents. WilmerHale, as a prominent D.C.-based law firm, came under scrutiny for employing Robert Mueller, who led the Special Counsel probe into Russian election interference. This investigation cast a lasting shadow over Trump’s first term and remained a lightning rod for political tension even years later. This context provides greater insight into Trump’s latest actions and their constitutional scrutiny.
Fact-Check: Key Claims Reviewed
Claim #1: The executive order instructed federal agencies to terminate contracts with WilmerHale.
This claim is accurate. According to the article and confirmed by court filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, President Trump’s executive order explicitly commanded agency heads to end all government contracts with WilmerHale. The directive appeared on the White House website before it was taken down following the federal court ruling. Legal experts, including reports published by Lawfare and the New York Times, also confirmed that the language mandated the cancellation of WilmerHale’s contracts, not merely a review or suspension. This confirms the user’s question as factually correct.
Claim #2: The executive order suspended security clearances for WilmerHale attorneys.
This is also true, based on both the article’s reporting and accompanying legal documents cited in case No. 25-cv-782. The order included a directive for the U.S. attorney general to revoke security clearances for lawyers affiliated with WilmerHale. National security law experts, including those cited by Reuters, underscored the rare—and potentially unconstitutional—nature of this action, arguing it could violate principles of due process and separation of powers. No evidence has emerged contradicting this part of the executive order.
Claim #3: The judge who blocked the order was appointed by George W. Bush and reacted with “fury.”
Confirmed. Judge Richard J. Leon, a well-known conservative-leaning jurist appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, authored the 73-page decision striking down the executive order. His language in the ruling was notably forceful, calling the administration’s arguments “absurd” and saying the order ignored “the vision of the Founding Fathers.” While the term “fury” is interpretive, it accurately reflects his unusually emphatic commentary, making this characterization reasonable in context, as noted also by constitutional scholars in coverage by NPR and Politico.
Claim #4: The White House has not responded to the judge’s opinion.
This is accurate according to multiple news outlets. As of May 27, 2025, when the article was published, there was no official statement from the White House regarding Judge Leon’s decision. A subsequent search of the official White House press page and Bloomberg’s daily briefings archive shows that the administration has not yet publicly addressed the ruling. Until that changes, the article’s claim holds.
Conclusion
The CNBC article provides an accurate and well-sourced account of a legal ruling invalidating a controversial Trump executive order targeting WilmerHale. All the major factual claims—regarding the termination of agency contracts, revocation of security clearances, the identity and tone of the judge, and the absence of a White House response—are verifiable and supported by official documents and mainstream reporting. While the article exhibits some editorial tone in phrases such as “a scathing, exclamation-point-filled opinion,” the underlying facts are sound. There is no significant omission or misleading context that would distort public understanding.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to stop misinformation before it spreads? Join thousands of truth-seekers using the DBUNK app to uncover the facts instantly. Download it today and follow us on social media for real-time fact-checks that put clarity first.
