A new report from the New York Times reveals that many of the big law firms that struck deals with President Donald Trump to avoid having their security clearances stripped are now finding that they're getting more than they bargain for.
Specifically, the Times reports that the firms thought that the tens of millions of dollars worth of pro-bono work they agreed to do for the Trump administration would revolve around relatively uncontroversial issues such as cases involving veterans' benefits.
However, it seems that Trump and his White House are taking a far more expansive view of the agreements and the Times reports that the administration could even try to force the firms to represent Trump or his allies in criminal cases free of charge.
"The emerging gap between what the firms initially thought they agreed to and what Mr. Trump says they can be used for shows how the deals did little to insulate them from his whims," the Times reports. "Further demands on the firms from Mr. Trump could raise the potential for conflicts with paying clients and could further fuel internal dissension."
ALSO READ: Trump business allies reeling as they realize 'he is crazier than they thought': analysis
This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that it's not known if the deals the firms reached with Trump were formal written agreements or handshake deals.
Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, tells the Times that he thinks that the firms did not properly understand the type of administration they were dealing with when they decided to cave to Trump's threats.
"They thought they made one-shot deals which they would fulfill,” he said. “But the administration seems to think that they have subjected these firms to indentured servitude.”
All of this led New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt to wonder on X whether "the deals between Trump and the law firms" could ultimately"be unraveling."
