{"id":136467,"date":"2025-11-06T15:25:22","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T23:25:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/06\/simpson-thacher-becomes-latest-surrender-firm-to-join-up-with-trumps-international-house-of-tariffs\/"},"modified":"2025-11-06T15:25:22","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T23:25:22","slug":"simpson-thacher-becomes-latest-surrender-firm-to-join-up-with-trumps-international-house-of-tariffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/06\/simpson-thacher-becomes-latest-surrender-firm-to-join-up-with-trumps-international-house-of-tariffs\/","title":{"rendered":"Simpson Thacher Becomes Latest Surrender Firm To Join Up With Trump\u2019s International House Of Tariffs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Back in August, the New York Times reported<\/a> that Kirkland and Paul Weiss (along with Skadden) \u2014 firms who had cut deals with the administration in exchange for pro bono payola \u2014 had done work for Trump\u2019s Commerce Department<\/a>. Democratic lawmakers quickly fired off inquiries<\/a> because giving the government free services would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, and direct work for the administration would contradict the firms\u2019 prior representations that any free legal work would be limited to a relatively benign list of charitable causes. The firms responded<\/a> without actually answering those concerns, instead reiterating that they can choose their clients and believe they\u2019re not doing anything wrong.<\/p>\n

Now, it seems, Simpson Thacher has joined up with Trump\u2019s Commerce Department<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is handling work for the U.S. Commerce Department, a department official confirmed on Wednesday. The New York firm is the latest Big Law firm that reached a pro bono deal with President Donald Trump this year to commit to do work on behalf of the U.S. government.<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher has already started working for the department, but the firm and the U.S. government are working to finalize an agreement for the firm\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are working with the firm and finalizing terms at the moment,\u201d a department official said. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cTerms\u201d implies a paid engagement. It also, by extension, lends support to the idea that the other firms also got paid for their time, despite earlier reports. And there\u2019s nothing wrong with that! Law firms perform work for the federal government all the time \u2014 in both Republican and Democratic administrations. If Simpson Thacher \u2014 and the other firms \u2014 are getting paid, it resolves both the Anti-Deficiency Act issue and concern that the firms misrepresented the extent of the deal in their early letters to lawmakers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So why can\u2019t they just say that<\/em>?<\/p>\n

\n

Simpson Thacher representatives did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Quelle surprise. <\/p>\n

If we\u2019re making predictions, when the inevitable letter from legislators arrives, the firm will also avoid saying, \u201cyes, we\u2019ve been engaged at our standard rate to perform contract work on behalf of the administration\u201d and instead cough up some vague song and dance about choosing their work and swearing without any evidence that they\u2019ve done nothing wrong.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s probably true! This probably is routine work. Now, is it routine work they would\u2019ve been awarded but for cutting deals that made them preferred contractors? Maybe not. That constitutes a whole other problem if, even unintentionally<\/em>, this sends a signal to the rest of the industry or the public at large that administration work is a pay-tribute-to-play endeavor. But, that aside, simply doing the work for money resolves the issues the lawmakers have explicitly raised.<\/p>\n

The fact that none of them will simply say so is exactly why these deals remain such a disastrous mistake.<\/p>\n

Right now, a handful of the most powerful law firms in the country are utterly tongue-tied when asked to give a straightforward, honest answer to the congressional equivalent of the $100 question on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire<\/em>. Because simply admitting \u201cno, obviously we wouldn\u2019t directly give Trump pro bono services\u201d comes with the non-zero prospect that the dementia-patient-in-Chief will momentarily emerge from the wreckage of the East Wing long enough to put his tiny hands on his Truth Social account and bang out a new executive order to destroy the firm\u2019s ability to do work. Nothing in the \u201cdeals\u201d they put together indicated that the firms would have to forfeit their ability to be forthright, but everyone understood that was part of the package.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s another wrinkle to the Lando effect<\/a>: it doesn\u2019t matter how fair the original terms may be, when you deal with a bad faith actor, they own you. Even if Vader doesn\u2019t alter the deal any further, there\u2019s no peace under this kind of deal because the fear never evaporates. Assuming Trump hasn\u2019t changed the deal to demand free Commerce work, why take this work at all? Why wouldn\u2019t the firms steer clear to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? It can\u2019t be particularly lucrative in the grand scheme of things. Doesn\u2019t it speak to the de facto<\/em> breadth of Trump\u2019s hold over them if the firms feel compelled to take on Trump work knowing that it would only invite further scrutiny? That they can\u2019t just speak plainly about it without fear of reprisal? I suspect the firms thought they had discrete, limited deals with no regard to the broader implications for both themselves and the industry. <\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not how Vader deals. They thought they were buying protection and instead they bought an obligation to keep proving their loyalty ad infinitum<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher Working for Commerce Department, Official Says<\/a> [Law.com]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: \u2018Pray I Don\u2019t Alter It Any Further\u2019: What Darth Vader Should Teach Law Firms About Settling With Trump<\/a>
Paul Weiss, Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of \u2018Please Don\u2019t Hurt Us Daddy\u2019 Deals<\/a>
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn\u2019t Totally Illegal<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Simpson Thacher Becomes Latest Surrender Firm To Join Up With Trump\u2019s International House Of Tariffs<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Back in August, the New York Times reported<\/a> that Kirkland and Paul Weiss (along with Skadden) \u2014 firms who had cut deals with the administration in exchange for pro bono payola \u2014 had done work for Trump\u2019s Commerce Department<\/a>. Democratic lawmakers quickly fired off inquiries<\/a> because giving the government free services would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, and direct work for the administration would contradict the firms\u2019 prior representations that any free legal work would be limited to a relatively benign list of charitable causes. The firms responded<\/a> without actually answering those concerns, instead reiterating that they can choose their clients and believe they\u2019re not doing anything wrong.<\/p>\n

Now, it seems, Simpson Thacher has joined up with Trump\u2019s Commerce Department<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is handling work for the U.S. Commerce Department, a department official confirmed on Wednesday. The New York firm is the latest Big Law firm that reached a pro bono deal with President Donald Trump this year to commit to do work on behalf of the U.S. government.<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher has already started working for the department, but the firm and the U.S. government are working to finalize an agreement for the firm\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are working with the firm and finalizing terms at the moment,\u201d a department official said. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cTerms\u201d implies a paid engagement. It also, by extension, lends support to the idea that the other firms also got paid for their time, despite earlier reports. And there\u2019s nothing wrong with that! Law firms perform work for the federal government all the time \u2014 in both Republican and Democratic administrations. If Simpson Thacher \u2014 and the other firms \u2014 are getting paid, it resolves both the Anti-Deficiency Act issue and concern that the firms misrepresented the extent of the deal in their early letters to lawmakers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So why can\u2019t they just say that<\/em>?<\/p>\n

\n

Simpson Thacher representatives did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Quelle surprise. <\/p>\n

If we\u2019re making predictions, when the inevitable letter from legislators arrives, the firm will also avoid saying, \u201cyes, we\u2019ve been engaged at our standard rate to perform contract work on behalf of the administration\u201d and instead cough up some vague song and dance about choosing their work and swearing without any evidence that they\u2019ve done nothing wrong.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s probably true! This probably is routine work. Now, is it routine work they would\u2019ve been awarded but for cutting deals that made them preferred contractors? Maybe not. That constitutes a whole other problem if, even unintentionally<\/em>, this sends a signal to the rest of the industry or the public at large that administration work is a pay-tribute-to-play endeavor. But, that aside, simply doing the work for money resolves the issues the lawmakers have explicitly raised.<\/p>\n

The fact that none of them will simply say so is exactly why these deals remain such a disastrous mistake.<\/p>\n

Right now, a handful of the most powerful law firms in the country are utterly tongue-tied when asked to give a straightforward, honest answer to the congressional equivalent of the $100 question on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire<\/em>. Because simply admitting \u201cno, obviously we wouldn\u2019t directly give Trump pro bono services\u201d comes with the non-zero prospect that the dementia-patient-in-Chief will momentarily emerge from the wreckage of the East Wing long enough to put his tiny hands on his Truth Social account and bang out a new executive order to destroy the firm\u2019s ability to do work. Nothing in the \u201cdeals\u201d they put together indicated that the firms would have to forfeit their ability to be forthright, but everyone understood that was part of the package.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s another wrinkle to the Lando effect<\/a>: it doesn\u2019t matter how fair the original terms may be, when you deal with a bad faith actor, they own you. Even if Vader doesn\u2019t alter the deal any further, there\u2019s no peace under this kind of deal because the fear never evaporates. Assuming Trump hasn\u2019t changed the deal to demand free Commerce work, why take this work at all? Why wouldn\u2019t the firms steer clear to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? It can\u2019t be particularly lucrative in the grand scheme of things. Doesn\u2019t it speak to the de facto<\/em> breadth of Trump\u2019s hold over them if the firms feel compelled to take on Trump work knowing that it would only invite further scrutiny? That they can\u2019t just speak plainly about it without fear of reprisal? I suspect the firms thought they had discrete, limited deals with no regard to the broader implications for both themselves and the industry. <\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not how Vader deals. They thought they were buying protection and instead they bought an obligation to keep proving their loyalty ad infinitum<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher Working for Commerce Department, Official Says<\/a> [Law.com]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: \u2018Pray I Don\u2019t Alter It Any Further\u2019: What Darth Vader Should Teach Law Firms About Settling With Trump<\/a>
Paul Weiss, Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of \u2018Please Don\u2019t Hurt Us Daddy\u2019 Deals<\/a>
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn\u2019t Totally Illegal<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Back in August, the New York Times reported that Kirkland and Paul Weiss (along with Skadden) \u2014 firms who had cut deals with the administration in exchange for pro bono payola \u2014 had done work for Trump\u2019s Commerce Department. Democratic lawmakers quickly fired off inquiries because giving the government free services would violate the Anti-Deficiency […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":136433,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Headshot-300x200-l93JKp.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136467\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/136433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}