Major U.S. law firms are sharply curtailing pro bono and other work that could place them in conflict with President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters investigation based on interviews with more than 60 attorneys, 30 nonprofit organisations and an analysis of court filings. The inquiry found that fear of political retaliation—ranging from threatened executive orders to probes of diversity policies—has prompted many firms to retreat from cases involving immigration, transgender rights and challenges to White House directives. The pull-back marks a break from Trump’s first term, when elite firms were often at the forefront of litigation against the federal government. Reuters’ review of millions of dockets shows the 50 highest-grossing firms represented plaintiffs in only about 3% of the 865 Administrative Procedure Act cases filed since January, down from nearly 9% of 3,400 such suits during his earlier presidency. Fourteen civil-rights groups said firms that once handled their challenges are now refusing, insisting on anonymity or scaling down assistance, leaving nonprofits with fewer resources to defend vulnerable clients. Pressure on Big Law has come through a series of Trump executive orders and related Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations that targeted firms over past representations and diversity, equity and inclusion programmes. Four firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman—each committed $125 million in pro bono work that supports administration priorities in exchange for the EEOC dropping its probes. In total, nine firms have pledged nearly $1 billion in aligned services, while 46 of the top 50 have stripped or altered website language on diversity and pro bono practices. Some firms continue to challenge the administration, and a handful—including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey—have secured court injunctions blocking specific Trump orders. Yet the broader chill has forced nonprofits such as the Texas Civil Rights Project to handle cases without the elite legal support they once relied on. Legal ethicists warn the trend threatens a longstanding professional norm that lawyers provide free representation to clients unable to pay, potentially diminishing access to justice for low-income and marginalised Americans.