Blumenthal, Raskin & Schiff Demand Answers From Big Law Firm Coerced Into Doing Trump's Bidding, Raise Ethics Concerns After Firm Advised Client In Transaction With Commerce Department

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee; and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pressed Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden) for answers after a newly unsealed complaint revealed that Skadden advised Intel Corporation in a transaction with the Department of Commerce (DOC)—enabling the Administration to snap up a 10 percent equity stake in Intel—at the same time Skadden reportedly provided legal counsel to DOC on other matters. “We previously sought to understand why Skadden promised $100 million in pro bono legal services to causes hand-picked by President Trump. We are especially troubled by reports that your firm has provided legal counsel to DOC regarding the Trump Administration’s efforts to leverage unlawful tariffs into foreign trade agreements. Such legal work raises a host of obvious potential issues, including potential violation of the Antideficiency Act , 31 U.S.C. §1342,’” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Jermey London, executive partner at Skadden. The lawmakers continued, “The response from your counsel to our last letter did not deny that Skadden has undertaken free legal work for a government agency. Instead, the firm’s response simply asserted, without any further explanation, that you ‘do [not agree]’ that any potential representations ‘would be contrary to’ Skadden’s agreement with the Trump Administration or would constitute ‘violations of any statutes, regulations, or ethical standards.’” Citing a recently unsealed shareholder complaint against Intel over its deal to provide the DOC with an $11 billion ownership stake, the lawmakers continued, “Recent allegations by shareholders of your client, Intel, refute this claim and renew our concerns about the President’s coercion of Skadden and other law firms…Skadden advised Intel on this transaction—a representation that, the complaint correctly notes, presents a host of conflicts given Skadden’s agreement with the Trump Administration.” The lawmakers concluded, seeking records and information related to Skadden’s agreement with the Trump Administration, “This information is crucial to our work conducting oversight of the Trump Administration’s outrageous and unprecedented efforts to coerce major law firms and some of the law firms’ willingness to enter into unlawful agreements to provide pro bono work to the Administration. Our inquiry will inform potential legislative reforms of laws and regulations governing the ethical requirements of federal public officials, agencies’ engagement of outside counsel, the regulation of attorneys and interstate law firms, the Antideficiency Act, and the scope of bribery laws governing pseudo-public and private deals with an Administration.” Blumenthal, Raskin, and Schiff had previously written to Skadden and other firms who cut deals with the Trump Administration, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Kirland & Ellis, LLP, following reports that the firms are providing free legal services on “a range of matters” to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Blumenthal and Raskin have also demanded each of the firms provide details about the deals struck with President Trump, including a detailed description of all requests for pro bono services the firms received from the White House. The full text of today’s letter is available here and below. July 21, 2026 VIA EMAIL Mr. Jeremy London Executive Partner Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Manhattan West, 395 9th Avenue New York, NY 10001 Dear Mr. London: We write (once again) about the profoundly troubling agreement that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”) entered into with the Trump Administration to provide “pro bono and other free services” to causes chosen by the President. We have already written to your firm twice seeking documents and answers that might help the public and Congress understand Skadden’s manifestly corrupt bargain with the President. To date, Skadden has provided no responsive information or records in response to our requests. [1] In light of recent revelations about your firm’s apparent conflicts advising both the Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) while the Administration snapped up a 10% equity stake in Intel, including the recent unsealing of the full Complaint in that matter, we emphasize the urgent imperative for you to fully disclose the details of your work for the federal government. We previously sought to understand why Skadden promised $100 million in pro bono legal services to causes hand-picked by President Trump. We are especially troubled by reports that your firm has provided legal counsel to DOC regarding the Trump Administration’s efforts to leverage unlawful tariffs into foreign trade agreements. [2] Such legal work raises a host of obvious potential issues, including potential violation of the Antideficiency Act , 31 U.S.C. §1342. The response from your counsel to our last letter did not deny that Skadden has undertaken free legal work for a government agency. Instead, the firm’s response simply asserted, without any further explanation, that you “do [not agree]” that any potential representations “would be contrary to” Skadden’s agreement with the Trump Administration or would constitute “violations of any statutes, regulations, or ethical standards.” [3] Recent allegations by shareholders of your client, Intel, refute this claim and renew our concerns about the President’s coercion of Skadden and other law firms. In a March 5, 2026, complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, which was recently fully unsealed, shareholders sued Intel over its deal to provide the DOC with an $11 billion ownership stake (worth 9.9% of Intel’s equity), alleging that this was done “for no meaningful consideration in response to extortionary threats by the government” and that “[n]o law authorizes the U.S. government to acquire stock in Intel or any publicly held company.” [4] Skadden advised Intel on this transaction—a representation that, the complaint correctly notes, presents a host of conflicts given Skadden’s agreement with the Trump Administration. As the complaint explains, Intel’s “Board, operating under the shadow of the President’s threats, and advised by legal counsel [Skadden] that itself was conflicted due to its pro bono promises to the President, caved to the government’s extortion.” [5] According to the complaint, despite the Intel board’s assessment that the “the economic terms that had been proposed [by] the Administration were not, in their current form, attractive to the Company and would need to be negotiated,” [6] “Skadden apparently never opined as to whether the Stock Agreement was lawful” before the board accepted the deal, and “[n]o evidence has been produced . . . that the Board was ever advised about or even considered Skadden’s serious conflicts of interest.” [7] It is hard to understand how Skadden’s provision of free legal services to the Trump Administration and the allegations made in the complaint do not cause Skadden’s attorneys to be in violation of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and your fiduciary duty to Intel. The significant allegations of ethical impropriety in the Intel shareholder complaint and your ongoing refusal to provide information and records responsive to our requests heighten our interest in understanding the details of your agreement with President Trump and any legal services Skadden has provided to the DOC or any other federal government agency. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump Administration, including written agreements, communications, and the information and records listed in our April 6, 2025, and September 24, 2025, letters. This information is crucial to our work conducting oversight of the Trump Administration’s outrageous and unprecedented efforts to coerce major law firms and some of the law firms’ willingness to enter into unlawful agreements to provide pro bono work to the Administration. Our inquiry will inform potential legislative reforms of laws and regulations governing the ethical requirements of federal public officials, agencies’ engagement of outside counsel, the regulation of attorneys and interstate law firms, the Antideficiency Act, and the scope of bribery laws governing pseudo-public and private deals with an Administration. Please provide the following information by August 4, 2026: All agreements made with the Trump Administration, including but not limited to, settlement records, client retainer letters, conflict disclosures, and any communications informing such agreements; A list of all individuals or entities who corresponded with Skadden, or any of its agents, to discuss an agreement with the Trump Administration, including the date(s) of any and all contacts; A list of all federal agencies that Skadden has performed work for, the number of hours spent working for those agencies, and the billable value of those hours; and A detailed explanation of how Skadden’s advising of Intel in its transaction with the Trump Administration did not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Please contact the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Judiciary Committee should you have any questions about responding to these requests. Sincerely, -30- [1] Letter from Richard Blumenthal, Ranking Member, S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, and Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Jeremy London, Skadden (Apr. 6, 2025), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025-4-6-Blumenthal-Raskin-Letter-to-Skadden.pdf ; Letter from Richard Blumenthal, Ranking Member, S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, Adam Schiff, United States Senator, and Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Jeremy London, Skadden (Sept. 24, 2025), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025-9-24-Letter-from-Sen.-Blumenthal-Congressman-Raskin-Sen.-Schiff-to-Skadden.pdf . [2] Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, Law Firms That Settled with Trump Are Asked to Help on Trade Deals , N.Y. Times (Aug. 13, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/us/politics/trump-law-firms-trade-deals.html . [3] Letter from Richard A. Sauber, Counsel to Skadden, to The Hon. Richard Blumenthal, The Hon. Jamie Raskin, & The Hon. Adam B. Schiff (Oct. 7, 2025) (attached). [4] Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, Paisner v. Tan , No. 26-cv-00414 (D. Del. May 4, 2026), available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.92754/gov.uscourts.ded.92754.21.1.pdf . [5] Id. ¶ 4. [6] Id . ¶ 83. [7] Id . ¶ 107.