Executive Order 14230: Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP

What does Executive Order 14230 do?

Agencies were assigned firm-specific clearance, contract and access reviews; their legality and implementation were contested in court.

Reading the operative provisions of Executive Order 14230

The order targeted one law firm through several separate federal levers: security-clearance eligibility, access to government facilities and information, and review of federal contracts. These are not interchangeable. A clearance decision concerns access to classified information; a contract decision concerns a particular procurement relationship; a building-access restriction concerns physical entry. Each has its own governing rules and should be assessed separately. The President’s stated findings appear in the Federal Register text of EO 14230, but allegations in the order are not independent proof of the conduct alleged.

The firm challenged the order, and the district court found constitutional defects, including viewpoint retaliation and due-process concerns. That judicial record is central to current enforceability: an executive order cannot displace the First Amendment, due-process requirements or the statutory procedures that govern a clearance or contract action. A court’s injunction controls within its scope; it does not necessarily decide every question involving other firms or unrelated generally applicable security rules. The D.C. Circuit’s May 2026 argument advisory documents appellate proceedings, but an argument notice alone is not a final appellate judgment.

The practical lesson is to separate the order’s directive from the agencies’ actions and from the courts’ remedy. A record that an agency received a directive does not establish that a clearance was revoked, a contract terminated or a person denied access. For each asserted consequence, look for the agency’s formal decision, the legal basis and any review available to affected parties. Because this order was firm-specific and has been blocked by courts, it should not be described as a general rule governing law firms or federal contractors.