• President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration.

As Donald Trump has taken aim at Big Law law firms in recent weeks, some firms have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel.

The president's wide-reaching orders have prompted reviews of each firm's government contracts, canceling security clearances for some firm employees and, in some cases, blocking them from entering federal buildings — including courthouses.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Others have agreed to work with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions against them.

The president has singled out a string of law firms that he says have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts.

What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action.

Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here are the firms Trump is taking on, how they've responded, and where the legal process stands for those who have challenged him in court.

Paul Weiss

On March 14, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm.

Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations."

In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work.

However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email.

Perkins Coie

On March 6, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies.

In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity."

The president, in his order, highlighted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign.

However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process."

"At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order.

Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced."

Covington & Burling LLP

Trump on February 25 signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work.

The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith.

A Covington spokesperson in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on March 28.

Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement.

"We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said.

Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement."

Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden.

In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks.

After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election."

The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

"President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court."

Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower.

"Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on March 25 that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court."

"We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said.

Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. On April 1, Bates extended this order until a final judgement has been made. Both the Justice Department and Jenner consented to the extension.

Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight."

"We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said.

WilmerHale

The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.

On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race."

In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration.

"This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement.

On the afternoon of March 28, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale.

"There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote.

A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action."

Milbank

On April 2, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had struck a preemptive deal with Milbank without targeting the firm for executive action.

The terms of the deal, according to the president's announcement, include the firm's agreement to end any DEI-based hiring practices, and to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as "assisting veterans" and "combatting antisemitism."

In addition, Milbank's pro bono committee will ensure the firm takes on cases representing "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals," and commits that it "will not deny representation to clients" based on the personal political views of individual lawyers, per Trump's announcement.

"Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," reads a statement from the White House included in Trump's post. "The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."

Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, said in a statement posted by Trump that, after a "constructive dialogue," the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration.

When reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the firm provided a letter sent by Edelman to Milbank's staff in which he said the agreement "is very much in Milbank's interest."

"The Administration's expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours," Edelman's letter to staff reads. "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Edelman added: "Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

Susman Godfrey

On April 9, Trump signed an executive memorandum targeting Susman Godfrey, a specialized litigation firm.

In a fact sheet, the White House accused Susman of spearheading "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."

Trump's order immediately suspends any Susman security clearances held by the firm's employees. The federal government will also terminate any contracts with the firm.

The firm's hiring practices will also be reviewed "to ensure compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias."

Susman said it would fight Trump's order.

"Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it," the firm said in a statement to Business Insider. "This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order."

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, struck a deal with the administration, pledging at least $100 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes, Trump said in an April 1 social media post.

"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," the White House said, according to Trump's post on Truth Social.

The firm's ties to Trump go to the 1990s when it represented the then real estate developer in a bankruptcy case.

In 2023, Willkie brought Tim Heaphy as partner. Heaphy was the former chief investigative counsel for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The firm also represents X, Elon Musk's social media platform.

Trump said that Willkie Farr & Gallagher also committed to "Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention," which touches on the Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives.

A representative for Willkie Farr & Gallagher did not respond to a request for comment.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Trump said in a Truth Social post April 11 that the administration had come to an agreement with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, saying the law firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services.

The services would go toward causes supported by Trump and the law firm, including assisting veterans and law enforcement, combatting antisemitism, and "ensuring fairness in our justice system."

The statement said the firm also agreed to "not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences" or to deny legal representation "because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."

"The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client's interests first; We believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and We are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds," Patrick Quinn, managing partner at Cadwalader, said in a statement shared by Trump.

Cadwalader did not respond to a request for comment.

Kirkland & Ellis

Trump also announced on April 11 the administration had come to an agreement with an additional four law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis. The president said in a Truth Social post the firms agreed to provide a total of $500 million in pro bono legal services to go toward the same types of causes, with each firm contributing $125 million.

The firms also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee their hiring practices and ensure they comply with antidiscrimination laws.

Trump said as a result of the agreement, he would end an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into the law firms over their DEI practices, which was initially announced on March 17.

In a joint statement shared by Trump, the senior executives at the four law firms said: "We have resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our Firms: Equal Employment Opportunity; providing pro bono assistance to a wide range of underserved populations, and ensuring fairness in the Justice System; and representing a broad spectrum of clients on various matters."

In a firm-wide internal memo obtained by BI, the Kirkland & Ellis executive committee said the agreement "resolves the EEOC's investigation, including its broad request for information about our people and our clients, which we no longer will be required to provide, and we will not be the target of an executive order."

"We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both," the memo said.

A&O Shearman

A&O Shearman was among the law firms with which Trump said on April 11 that his administration had reached an agreement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the administration. It also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring practices, and the EEOC investigation into the firms has stopped.

A&O Shearman did not respond to a request for comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett also reached an agreement with the White House to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the firm and Trump, as well as engage outside counsel to ensure its hiring practices comply with antidiscrimination laws.

As a result of the agreement, the EEOC investigation into the firm's hiring practices was stopped.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett did not respond to a request for comment.

Latham & Watkins

Latham & Watkins was also among the four firms that reached an agreement with Trump, according to the April 11 announcement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services as well as engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring. As a result, the Trump administration ended the EEOC investigation into the firm.

Latham & Watkins did not respond to a request for comment.

• COVID-era accommodations are losing ground to more high-pressure work schedules.
• Workplace experts say DOGE has set an example that could impact corporate culture and expectations.
• "A perfect storm" of rising costs and recession fears makes workers more afraid to quit.

If you've noticed an uptick in emails from your boss during weekends, are facing strict return-to-office orders, or are being told to accomplish more with less, economic uncertainty and DOGE could be to blame, according to experts in workplace management.

"I think that the pendulum is swinging toward much less work-life balance and much more constant chronic stress," Dr. Tasha Eurich, organizational psychologist and New York Times bestselling author, told Business Insider.

Eurich said increased chaos in the markets is making it much more difficult not only to get by but also to find a way to thrive at work and in life.

"We know that uncertainty is one of the most aversive states for human beings — it sets off the same parts of our brain as would happen when we are being chased by a tiger when our ancestors were trying to stay alive together," said Eurich.

Eurich pointed to data from the World Uncertainty Index — which tracks worldwide political events — showing that levels of uncertainty about geopolitics and economic situations have been steadily climbing back to early pandemic levels over the past six months.

While ongoing conflicts may have contributed to the level of concern, many workplace experts say that in the US, economic uncertainty and the rise of DOGE could also contribute to feelings of uncertainty, especially since the beginning of 2025, which may cause more to hold on to their desks and accept less desirable conditions.

The DOGE effect

With Elon Musk, Tesla's billionaire CEO, as its face, DOGE brought his controversial "hardcore" management style to the government.

This year, DOGE fired tens of thousands of federal workers via email, citing poor performance. Meta has also been using the same tactic for "low-performers."

In February, DOGE sent a weekend email demanding federal employees justify their jobs with an email detailing five accomplishments by Monday night. Musk then said on social media that non-respondents were considered resigned.

This week, DOGE also used Tesla's badge-scan layoff tactic at the Department of Health and Human Services: if badges worked, jobs were safe; if not, employees were out. Many were left in tears.

Musk himself also said that he works 120-hour weeks and expects similar dedication from his employees, particularly from those hired by DOGE. On X, he called working the weekend "a superpower."

Rahaf Harfoush, a digital anthropologist and future of work expert, told BI that figures like Musk create a dangerous cultural script and embody the myth that if you just work hard enough, you'll succeed. This myth, she says, conveniently leaves out structural advantages like generational wealth, elite networks, and access to opportunity.

"What's left unsaid is this: billionaires can work those hours because their wealth buys them time," said Harfoush. "They have chefs, nannies, drivers, assistants — an entire infrastructure that handles the responsibilities most people can't outsource."

"Because these leaders are idolized, their behavior sets a tone. It becomes a kind of performative workaholism that companies mimic not because it's effective but because it aligns with our deeply held beliefs about what ambition and success should look like," Harfoush added.

'A perfect storm'

While Musk and DOGE push a version of work driven by ambiguous measures of high performance and includes toiling through the weekends, the job market and economic uncertainty make it harder for unhappy workers to find new opportunities.

Businesses large and small are finding themselves in limbo because of Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs on the US and Canada. Workers are becoming more afraid to quit under the concern that there will be a 2008-esque recession.

"We're seeing a perfect storm of factors colliding," said Harfoush. "We're seeing echoes of 2008 — people taking on more work, fewer breaks, and less pay — because survival feels more urgent than balance."

How workers can regain control

However, a workplace driven by fear and an idealized version of productivity won't necessarily deliver results in the long run. Homa Bahrami, a senior lecturer at the Haas School of Business of UC Berkeley, said that while workers may comply in the short run when CEOs put a virtual "gun to their head," such moves would impact goodwill, commitment, and the emotional engagement of the employee.

"Ultimately, if you're working in a place with core values are exactly the opposite of yours as a human being, then it's not sustainable, and you're not going to make it really work," said Bahrami.

Eurich also echoed this sentiment and called laying off workers to set an example the "most counterproductive thing" a company could do.

There are ways for workers to push back and regain some extent of control.

Bahrami said that though burnout can often not be avoided when conditions are adverse, it helps to have a forward-looking mindset, update skills proactively, and set goals for reaching an ideal job.

Harfoush said that even small acts of resistance could go a long way, starting with delaying that first email check until an hour after waking up, taking real lunch breaks, and, for managers, having explicit conversations with their team about response expectations.

"Often, the pressure to be always-on isn't real — it's imagined," said Harfoush. "But it becomes real when no one challenges it."

• The world's top 10 richest people saw $74 billion vanish on paper after Trump's tariffs.
• Trump's tariffs triggered a huge market sell-off.
• Musk lost $11 billion and Bezos nearly $16 billion, per the Bloomberg Billionaire Index.

The world's top 10 richest people saw $74 billion vanish on paper after this week's market rout, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Wednesday afternoon triggered market chaos. Stocks suffered their worst single-day loss in five years on Thursday. The S&P 500 dropped nearly 5%, the Dow lost 1,679 points, and the Nasdaq composite plunged 6%.

Here's how much the wealthiest have lost since the tariff announcement and how it compares to their net worth, per Bloomberg:

Elon Musk

-$11.0 billion ( -2.5%)

Elon Musk has seen his net worth fluctuate wildly over the past several weeks, as his involvement with the White House DOGE office has drawn public ire and boycotts against Tesla, sending Tesla's stock down.

Musk's wealth largely comes from his stake in Tesla, but he is also the CEO of X/Twitter, Neuralink, the Boring Company, and SpaceX. He's worth $322 billion, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, making him the world's richest person.

Jeff Bezos

-$15.9 billion ( -6.7%)

Bezos is the founder and executive chairman of Amazon, and he is worth $201 billion. He also owns The Washington Post, which he purchased in 2013. Bezos stepped down as Amazon's CEO in 2021.

Mark Zuckerberg

-$17.9 billion ( -8.6%)

Mark Zuckerberg has been facing criticism over rolling back fact-checking on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Threads, and Instagram, and replacing that with "community notes."

Zuckerberg is the cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Meta, putting him at a net worth of $189 billion.

Warren Buffet

-$2.57 billion ( -1.8%)

Warren Buffett, with a net worth of $165 billion, is the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, a multinational conglomerate holding company. Through Berkshire, Buffett owns a wide range of businesses, including GEICO, BNSF Railway, and Dairy Queen.

Berkshire Hathaway's largest holding is Apple, which makes up around 20% of its portfolio.

Bernard Arnault

-$6.22 billion ( -3.5%)

Bernard Arnault is the chairman and CEO of LVMH, the world's largest luxury goods conglomerate. The majority of his $163 billion comes from his stake in LVMH, which owns over 75 brands across fashion, cosmetics, jewelry, and spirits, including Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Moët & Chandon.

LVMH has been reporting declining sales under dampened consumer sentiments in multiple countries.

Bill Gates

-$291 million ( -0.2%)

Bill Gates is the cofounder of Microsoft, though he stepped down from the company's board in 2020 and now owns only a small percentage of its shares. Most of his $162 billion in wealth is managed through Cascade Investment, a private firm that holds major stakes in companies like the Four Seasons Hotels.

Gates also runs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a philanthropy organization that supports global health, education, and climate initiatives.

Larry Ellison

-$8.10 billion ( -4.2%)

Larry Ellison is the cofounder, executive chairman, and chief technology officer of Oracle, one of the world's largest software and cloud computing companies. With a net worth of $160 billion, Ellison is also a major investor in Tesla and owns a large portion of Lanai, a Hawaiian island.

Ellison, along with OpenAI's Sam Altman and SoftBank's Masayoshi Son, are also spearheading Project Stargate, a $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative supported by Trump.

Larry Page

-$4.79 billion ( -2.9%)

Larry Page is the cofounder of Google and a board member of its parent company, Alphabet. While he stepped down as Alphabet's CEO in 2019, he remains a major shareholder and influential figure, with a net worth of $138 billion.

Page is also a major backer of Kitty Hawk and Opener, companies that are developing electric flying vehicles.

Steve Ballmer

-$2.85 billion ( -1.9%)

Steve Ballmer is the former CEO of Microsoft, a role he held from 2000 to 2014. He remains one of the company's largest individual shareholders, with a net worth of $131 billion.

Outside Microsoft, Ballmer also owns the Los Angeles Clippers, an NBA team he purchased in 2014 for $2 billion.

Sergey Brin

-$4.46 billion ( -2.8%)

Sergey Brin is the cofounder of Google and played a key role in developing its early search algorithms. He served as president of Alphabet until stepping down in 2019.

Like Page, Brin retains significant influence at Alphabet through his Class B shares. Most of his $130 billion net worth is tied to Alphabet stock.

• President Donald Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs on Wednesday.
• Many commentators have questioned the tariffs and highlighted their potential economic consequences.
• One said Trump was unlikely to U-turn on the tariffs, so it was time to "sell the dip," not buy it.

President Donald Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs on Wednesday — and people have been reacting as global markets take a hammering.

Here's what big names in business and economics have been saying:

Business Roundtable

Joshua Bolten, the CEO of Business Roundtable, an association that represents more than 200 CEOs, said in a statement the tariffs "run the risk of causing major harm to American manufacturers, workers, families and exporters." He added: "Damage to the US economy will increase the longer the tariffs are in place and may be exacerbated by retaliatory measures."

He said the Business Roundtable "supports President Trump's goal of securing better and fairer trade deals with our trading partners" but called on him to introduce "additional reasonable exemptions" and a "transparent, predictable exclusion process."

Larry Summers

"Never before has an hour of Presidential rhetoric cost so many people so much," Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary, wrote on X. "The best estimate of the loss from tariff policy is now closer to $30 trillion."

Summers added that the tariffs were the most expensive and "masochistic" the US had imposed in decades.

Mohamed El-Erian

"The price action in global financial markets in the immediate aftermath of the US tariff announcement points to major worries about global economic growth," Mohamed El-Erian, the former CEO of bond giant PIMCO and the chief economic advisor at Allianz, said on X.

Mariana Mazzucato

"These tariffs will cause inflation in the United States; they will cause lower consumer power of US workers. The estimates are between $1,700 to $5,000 per family in terms of the costs of these tariffs," Mariana Mazzucato, an economics professor at University College London, told ITV's "Peston" program.

Boaz Weinstein

Boaz Weinstein, Saba Capital Management's founder, doesn't expect Trump to change course, posting on X: "I'm often wrong, but I don't see him doing a u-turn. This is not a buy-the-dip opportunity. It's a sell the dip opportunity."

David Rosenberg

"So, this tariff file is now being labeled 'Make America Wealthy Again'? What is with that adverb 'again' which is defined as 'returning to a previous condition'? The previous condition, I can tell you, was not nearly as good as the current condition, seeing as US net national net worth just reached a record level of $157 TRILLION (a cool $1.2 million per household … too bad we don't all live at the average!)," David Rosenberg, the founder and president of Rosenberg Research & Associates, said on X.

"Have tariffs really stood in the way of wealth creation in America? I think the title should simply be the truth: 'Let's Make the World Poor Again' (and then we can buy it at a discount)," Rosenberg added.

Nouriel Roubini

Nouriel Roubini, a professor emeritus of the NYU Stern School of Business, said the "Liberation Day" label was "Orwellian doublespeak."

"Whatever the consequences of these tariffs will be — ie lower growth and higher inflation and how much of it depending on the eventual size of these tariffs post-negotiations that will be ugly and long-drawn. There is absolutely no 'liberation' at all in them: not for US consumers, workers and businesses, let alone for the rest of the world," he said on X.

Paul Krugman

"I guess it's just possible that when we get details about the Trump tariffs they will be lower than what he just announced, but based on what he said, he's gone full-on crazy," Paul Krugman, a Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist and former MIT and Princeton University professor, wrote in his Substack newsletter.

"If you had any hopes that Trump would step back from the brink, this announcement, between the very high tariff rates and the complete falsehoods about what other countries do, should kill them," Krugman added.

Howard Silverblatt

"March continued with President Trump's rapid executive orders and policy changes, as tariffs (along with their potential impact on the economy), inflation, employment and consumer spending became the main concerns of the market, which pulled back with increased trading on strong negative breadth," wrote Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst of S&P Dow Jones Indices, in a S&P Global column.

"Adding to the concern were Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) government employment reductions, as well as US layoffs, which have increased (along with retail warnings)," he added.

The Yale Budget Lab

"The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 2.3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $3,800 in 2024$. Annual losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution are $1,700," wrote the Yale Budget Lab in a new analysis published on April 2, shortly after Trump's blanket tariff announcement.

Jared Bernstein

"True, the United States is a large and dominant country. And it is a relatively closed country, meaning we depend less on trade than most other countries," said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist, in his newsletter. "That means, as Trump has correctly argued, we can hurt them more than they can hurt us. He fails to give a coherent rationale for why we need to start a trade war with Canada, Mexico, Japan, Europe, and other traditionally reliable trading partners."

"First, though they've been explicitly cavalier about the pain they're causing, higher inflation, slower growth, lower investment, falling stock prices — as of this moment, the Dow is down 1,200 points — and higher recession chances could force them to recant. But, at least so far, that may have been the way of Trump 1; it's not the way of Trump 2," he added.

Justin Wolfers

"Monstrously destructive, incoherent, ill-informed tariffs based on fabrications, imagined wrongs, discredited theories and ignorance of decades of evidence. And the real tragedy is that they will hurt working Americans more than anyone else," said Justin Wolfers, economics professor at University of Michigan and public policy scholar, on BlueSky.

Daryl Fairweather

"If these tariffs were more targeted and on specific goods, I wouldn't be so sure we would have stagflation. But these appear to be extremely broad, so I expect higher inflation and lower or even negative economic growth," said Daryl Fairweather, Redfin chief economist, on BlueSky.

"Home construction was already going to be weak this year, but these tariffs (combined with labor problems from immigration policy) will mean fewer homes built," she added.

Bill Gross

The latest set of tariffs is "a similar event to going off the gold standard in 1971. It's an epic event. It's not something where you can time quickly for a market bottom. It's something that we're going to have to live with as long as President Trump continues with this stance," Bill Gross, the cofounder of Pimco, told CNBC.

"I don't think he's going to back down. President Trump, to be very blunt, is a macho male, and this macho male is not going to back down tomorrow simply because the Nasdaq's down 5%," said Gross, who's also known as "Bond King."

Gross said it's not a time for investors to bottom fish, likening it to "catching a falling knife."

Steven Blitz

"Tariffs attack US trading partners but, in effect, attack US corporate profit margins first," wrote Steven Blitz, the chief US economist at GlobalData.TS Lombard. "The 40-odd years of profits rising relative to GDP has ended. The macro risk hitting markets is real, but only accentuates the devaluation process."

"Further exacerbating market volatility is redirection of foreign capital from the US to wherever multiple expansion appears more promising," Blitz wrote.

Jim O'Neill

Jim O'Neill, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs, told BBC News on Friday that the "sensible" thing to do would be for the UK to speak to other members of G7, aside from the US, about lowering trade barriers between each other, particularly for cross-border services.

He said this would be "very healthy for all those countries because it's the one area of global trade that most countries haven't done enough in."

If the US wants to continue down this "kamikaze path," the UK will have to respond, O'Neill added. "It is the US which is going to be hurt more, especially in the short-term, from these rather insane moves."

Stephanie Kelton

"Just had a journalist ask me to explain "Liberation Day,"" Stephanie Kelton, author of The Deficit Myth, wrote in a post on X. "I told him it's about liberating Americans from some of the cash in their wallets."

George Saravelos

George Saravelos, a Deutsche Bank analyst, said in a Friday note that markets were pricing in a global recession.

"This is a US-centric fiscal shock driven by the Trump administration and it is fiscal policy that can unwind it. The countries that respond the quickest and most forcefully to this shock are those whose currencies will likely be the most resilient. And, on the flipside, the more the US fiscal strategy under the Trump administration lacks visibility, the more the market will punish the dollar and US assets.

"One last point: don't expect a reluctant-to-cut Fed to support the dollar. Remember that during the European supply-shock of 2022, the ECB turned hawkish. The euro sold-off regardless because real rates and growth expectations collapsed."

Kristalina Georgieva

Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, warned that US tariffs posed a "significant risk" to the global economy.

"We are still assessing the macroeconomic implications of the announced tariff measures, but they clearly represent a significant risk to the global outlook at a time of sluggish growth," she said in a statement on Thursday.

Christine Lagarde

Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, told Ireland's Newstalk that the tariffs would be "negative the world over."

She said Trump's move "will not be good for the global economy and it will not be good for those who inflict the tariffs and those who retaliate."