Obama Sparks Bipartisan Outrage After Blasting Law Firms and Universities for Yielding to Trump

Former President Barack Obama has once again positioned himself in the center of the political storm, this time infuriating allies and opponents alike with a pointed and scathing critique aimed at the nation’s most powerful law firms and elite universities.

Speaking at a private high-dollar fundraiser in New Jersey last Friday, Obama unleashed frustration over what he described as the legal community’s and academia’s capitulation to former President Donald Trump’s expanding influence, particularly in the wake of Trump’s aggressive maneuvers against these institutions since his return to the White House.

According to Business Insider, which first reported on the fundraiser’s private remarks, Obama directed his ire at prominent law firms that, in his view, chose to “set aside the law” rather than resist Trump’s directives.

Rather than mounting principled stands, Obama accused these institutions of prioritizing their personal wealth and prestige. In a particularly stinging observation, he derided those in the legal elite for caving to Trump not out of existential fear but due to far more pedestrian concerns.

“They’re not doing it because they’re going to be thrown in jail,” Obama reportedly said, “but because they might lose a few clients and might not be able to finish that kitchen rehab at their Hampton house.”

The line, dripping with disdain, quickly circulated among political commentators and within legal circles, many of whom found themselves uncomfortable with the former president’s sweeping indictment of the profession.

Obama, who himself boasts deep connections to the world of Big Law, didn’t pull punches. His legal pedigree includes a summer associate stint at the prestigious law firm Sidley & Austin during his Harvard Law School days.

His early career saw him practicing civil rights law at Chicago’s Miner, Barnhill & Galland, experience that he frequently cites when discussing the law’s role in advancing social justice. Yet now, even the corridors he once navigated are not immune from his criticism.

His latest comments come against the backdrop of a fierce clash between the Trump administration and major law firms across the country. Since February, President Trump has signed a series of executive orders explicitly targeting high-profile firms such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, accusing them of weaponizing the legal system for partisan ends.

The administration has gone so far as to revoke the security clearances of these firms and initiate formal reviews of their federal contracts. The actions, unprecedented in scope, sent a chilling message through the legal industry: align with Trump’s agenda or face financial and operational penalties.

While some firms, notably Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis, responded by cooperating with the administration’s demands — even agreeing to provide pro bono legal services for conservative causes — others, like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, pushed back defiantly, filing lawsuits aimed at challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s orders.

This legal rebellion has further deepened the fissures within the industry, as firms grapple with the delicate balance between legal ethics, professional survival, and political realities.

Obama’s criticism did not stop at the law firms. He reserved equally pointed remarks for the nation’s top universities, institutions that he accused of compromising their academic integrity in exchange for federal funding under Trump’s policies.

A particular flashpoint in this discussion was his alma mater, Columbia University, which recently faced a $400 million cut in federal funding due to what the Trump administration described as its failure to adequately address campus antisemitism amid ongoing protests over Israel’s war in Gaza.

The university, after considerable internal debate and public backlash, ultimately acquiesced to the administration’s demands, implementing new policies aimed at curbing antisemitic rhetoric and ensuring campus safety. To Obama, this concession represented a broader betrayal of academic values.

“If your core mission, if your core value is to teach, you may teach without compromising values of academic independence,” Obama said. “Yeah, you may lose some grant money temporarily.

That’s why you have those big endowments.” His rebuke struck a chord — and a nerve — among university administrators, many of whom are already struggling to balance financial imperatives with ideological commitments in a politically volatile climate.

The former president’s remarks reverberated far beyond the walls of the New Jersey fundraiser. Across social media and the commentariat, reactions poured in from both sides of the political aisle.

Progressive activists criticized Obama for scolding institutions without offering tangible solutions to the economic pressures that fuel these compromises.

Meanwhile, conservatives seized on his comments as evidence of liberal elitism and hypocrisy, pointing out that Obama himself is no stranger to wealth, privilege, and the elite institutions he now chastises.

Adding fuel to the political fire, Obama expanded his warnings about the current political trajectory of the United States during a separate appearance at The Connecticut Forum on June 17.

There, he expressed alarm that the nation was teetering dangerously close to autocracy under President Trump’s leadership. “We’re not there yet completely,” he said cautiously, “but I think that we are dangerously close to normalizing behavior like that.”

These remarks echoed growing concerns among segments of the public and political observers who view Trump’s second-term agenda as a direct challenge to democratic norms.

Still, to his critics, Obama’s interventions appear both too little and too late, delivered from the comfort of elite gatherings rather than the trenches of policy advocacy or grassroots mobilization.

As if the controversy surrounding Obama’s comments wasn’t enough, the Biden administration — still reeling from its electoral defeat and facing Republican ascendancy — became ensnared in a parallel debate over presidential authority and transparency.

Former President Joe Biden recently faced a new round of criticism related to his use of an autopen to sign off on his final series of presidential pardons and clemency measures during the waning days of his term.

In an interview with The New York Times, Biden defended the practice, emphasizing that he had personally made all substantive decisions regarding clemency.

“We’re talking about [granting clemency to] a whole lot of people,” Biden told the Times, referring to the over 1,500 individuals who benefited from the largest single-day act of clemency by any U.S. president.

Nonetheless, the Times reported that Biden did not personally approve each name included in the categorical pardons. Instead, after extensive internal deliberations, he established the criteria by which individuals would be evaluated for sentence reductions.

The autopen was then employed by White House staff to expedite the signing process — a practical, if symbolically troubling, solution that Republicans have pounced on as indicative of a disengaged presidency.

The Biden team’s use of the autopen rekindled familiar Republican attacks on the competence and transparency of the previous administration, criticisms that now blend seamlessly into their ongoing campaign narratives ahead of 2028.

Obama’s interventions, however well-intentioned, risk being subsumed into this maelstrom of recrimination, particularly as his critiques alienate even those within his natural political base.

Ultimately, Obama’s remarks reflect the profound disillusionment within segments of the American elite over the state of the nation’s institutions under Trump’s renewed presidency.

His frustration with law firms, universities, and the broader professional class speaks to a deeper anxiety: that the very pillars of American democracy — the rule of law, academic freedom, and principled resistance — are being eroded not solely by authoritarian impulses, but by the complacency and complicity of those tasked with defending them.

Yet whether his pointed critiques will galvanize meaningful change or merely add to the noise of political discourse remains to be seen. For now, Obama stands accused by many of preaching from the sidelines, offering condemnation without committing to the kind of organized resistance that the moment, arguably, demands.