Former President Barack Obama sharply criticized major U.S. law firms for what he described as their willingness to bend to the political pressure of the Trump administration, suggesting that many attorneys were prioritizing wealth and status over their professional responsibilities and the rule of law.

Speaking at a private fundraiser in New Jersey, Obama expressed disappointment in some of the country’s most powerful legal institutions. According to reporting from Business Insider, the former president argued that certain firms had “set aside the law” in their attempts to stay on the good side of Donald Trump. Obama said the motivation behind this behavior was not genuine fear of retaliation but a desire to avoid losing lucrative clients or jeopardizing the lavish lifestyles many in the legal world enjoy.

He remarked that these lawyers were not worried about imprisonment or formal punishment but rather about smaller inconveniences—such as the possibility of delaying a kitchen renovation on a high-end vacation property. “I’m not impressed,” Obama said, according to remarks shared by MSNBC.

Obama’s critique was notable given his own long-standing relationship with the legal field. His early career included a summer associate position at Sidley & Austin while he was a student at Harvard Law School, followed by years practicing civil rights law at the Chicago firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland before launching his political career. These experiences have often shaped his views on legal ethics and institutional responsibility.

His comments came amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and numerous top law firms. Since February, Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting practices at well-known legal powerhouses—including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling—accusing them of politicizing the courts. The orders revoked security clearances for attorneys at those firms, directed reviews of their federal contracts, and accused them of engaging in partisan legal maneuvers.

Law firms responded differently. Some, such as Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis, opted to cooperate with the administration and engaged in pro bono work on conservative legal issues. Others, including Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, mounted legal challenges against the executive actions. The divide highlighted the pressure placed on major legal institutions and the ethical questions surrounding compliance versus resistance.

Obama also extended his criticism beyond the legal sector. He condemned universities that he said had capitulated to the Trump administration when faced with threats to their federal funding.

One prominent example was Columbia University, Obama’s alma mater. The school eventually complied with administration demands after the White House moved to withhold roughly $400 million in federal support, citing the university’s handling of campus protests over the war in Gaza and allegations of insufficient action against antisemitism.

Obama argued that universities should be willing to endure temporary financial setbacks in order to protect academic independence. Large endowments, he noted, exist in part to provide stability during moments of political pressure or controversy. Institutions, he said, should not abandon core values for the sake of financial ease.

The former president has increasingly spoken out against Trump in recent months. During a forum in Connecticut on June 17, Obama warned that the country was in danger of becoming desensitized to authoritarian behavior. While he said the U.S. had not yet crossed into autocracy, he argued that Americans were “dangerously close to normalizing” conduct that undermines democratic norms.

Meanwhile, former President Joe Biden has been defending his own administrative decisions as public scrutiny over his final acts in office continues. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Biden explained his administration’s use of an autopen—a device that reproduces his signature—for the final round of pardons and commutations issued near the end of his term. The last wave of clemency actions covered more than 1,500 people, making it the largest single-day exercise of presidential clemency in U.S. history.

Biden emphasized that he personally made all of the policy decisions behind the clemency criteria. However, he acknowledged that he did not individually review every name included under the broad guidelines he approved. His team, he said, relied on the autopen to efficiently finalize large volumes of documents without requiring him to sign each one manually.

Republican critics have argued that the extensive use of the autopen undermines transparency and raises questions about presidential oversight. Biden, however, maintained that the process was both legally sound and necessary given the administrative workload created by the sweeping clemency measures.