I ask Grok: “Do the professions such as law lean to the political left?”
Grok says:
Yeah, professions like law do tend to lean left, at least in the U.S., but it’s not a monolith—context, location, and specific roles tweak the picture. Data backs this up: a 2021 study from the American Bar Association found 68% of lawyers identified as liberal or leaned Democratic, compared to 27% conservative or Republican. That’s a hefty tilt. Same vibe in academia—legal scholars at top law schools like Harvard or Yale skew even harder, with donor records from a 2017 New York Times analysis showing 15-to-1 Democratic over Republican contributions.
Why? Education’s a factor. Lawyers need advanced degrees, and higher education correlates with left-leaning views—Pew Research in 2020 pegged 54% of postgrads as liberal vs. 19% conservative. Urban clustering helps too; most big law firms are in blue cities like New York or San Francisco, where social norms lean progressive. The job itself—defending rights, challenging power—also attracts people comfy with ideas like social justice or government intervention, which vibe more with the left.
But it’s not uniform. Corporate lawyers, especially at elite firms (think Big Law), often swing pragmatic or rightward—handling billion-dollar mergers doesn’t scream socialism. A 2022 National Law Journal survey showed partners at top firms donated 55% to Republicans, flipping the script. Criminal defense or public interest lawyers, though? Way more left—80% Democratic per a 2018 UCLA study, likely tied to their focus on marginalized groups.
X posts reflect this split. You’ll see gripes about “woke lawyers” pushing DEI, countered by others saying law’s just a mercenary gig—politics depends on the paycheck. History’s mixed too: lawyers drove the Constitution (conservative bedrock), but also civil rights (progressive wins). Today, the left lean’s real—campaign finance data from OpenSecrets shows lawyers gave $43 million to Dems vs. $14 million to GOP in 2020. Still, it’s less about the profession “being” left and more about who it attracts and where it’s practiced.
Doctors? Mixed bag. A 2016 JAMA study found 45% of physicians identified as Democrats, 34% Republicans, and the rest independent—closer to even than law’s 68% left lean. Specialties shift it: surgeons and anesthesiologists (higher earners) trend GOP, while pediatricians and psychiatrists lean Dem, per a 2019 Medscape survey. Why? Income and values. Docs making over $250k—about 60% of them—often favor tax cuts and deregulation (right-wing vibes), but those in public health or academia (more urban, research-focused) swing left. AMA donations in 2020 split 52% Dem, 48% GOP, per OpenSecrets.
Dentists? More conservative. A 2018 Journal of the American Dental Association poll pegged 54% Republican, 36% Democrat. They’re often small-business owners—private practices dominate—and that entrepreneurial streak aligns with right-leaning priorities like lower taxes and less red tape. Rural dentists (20% of the field) amplify this; Pew 2020 data shows rural America’s 60% GOP. ADA political giving in 2020? 58% to Republicans.
Accountants? Slight right lean. A 2021 Accounting Today survey had 49% Republican, 41% Democrat. Big Four firms (Deloitte, PwC) in blue cities like NYC show more Dems (55% per internal polls), but smaller firms and solo CPAs—think tax prep in the heartland—tilt GOP. Why? Business focus again. Accountants deal with tax codes and corporate clients; 62% of CFOs surveyed by Duke in 2022 leaned conservative, and that rubs off.
Thomas B. Edsall writes in the New York Times today:
In addition to revoking the security clearances, Trump wrote in a Feb. 25 memorandum, “I also direct the attorney general and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling L.L.P. by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the director of the Office of Management and Budget.”
The effects of the Trump administration’s initiatives soon become apparent. On Feb. 26 the Bloomberg reporters Ben Penn and Tatyana Monnay described some of the reverberations of the Trump edict in “Covington Revenge Deepens Worries of Defending Trump Targets.”
“Some firm leaders,” they wrote, “citing corporate clients threatening to walk if they get crosswise with Trump, have rejected outright or put up roadblocks to partners seeking approval to represent D.O.J. lawyers, F.B.I. agents and other civil servants who’ve faced various forms of attack.”
Penn and Monnay reported that their sources told them:
Individual attorneys want to enter what they see as a nonpartisan battle to preserve democracy by filing merit systems complaints for terminated federal employees, representing Jan. 6 prosecutors under investigation from D.O.J. and Congress or participating in litigation to halt Trump policies. Firms’ senior decision makers, however, agonize about the sustainability of representing current and former government employees opposite the administration.
It’s not just the left and the center that find the administration’s policies disturbing. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, warned in a Feb. 26 essay, “Trump Punishes Large Law Firm for Representing His Adversary,” that the president’s actions threaten “the loss of an independent and qualified bar willing to stand up to authority.”
The implications of the revocation of security clearances, Olson continued, “go far beyond the practice of national security law. Anyone can find themselves in a fight with Trump or his allies on almost any topic under the sun, and the question is whether the counsel representing you in that dispute has to fear being made the next Covington.”
While the focus is different, the drive by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to reduce the size of the federal work force also carries a broader message.
Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford, analyzed the pattern of personnel cuts initiated by Musk in a Feb. 28 Substack post, “The DOGE Purge: Empirical Evidence of Politically Motivated Firings,” and concluded: “What we’re witnessing in Washington isn’t about ‘efficiency’ or ‘cutting waste.’ It’s a calculated, ideologically driven purge of federal agencies perceived as liberal — a playbook lifted directly from modern authoritarian regimes.”
Bonica found that “agencies perceived as liberal are overwhelmingly more likely to face staffing cuts. This ideological targeting is the single strongest predictor of which agencies face layoffs — far outweighing practical considerations like agency size or budget.”
Targeting U.S.A.I.D. and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “two of the most liberal-leaning agencies, is likely telling,” Bonica wrote. “The hardest-hit agencies are precisely those that regulate industry, protect public health and expand access to education.”
The cuts DOGE is calling for, Bonica argued, fulfill an authoritarian agenda, closely following the proposals in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. The underlying goals include:
Frame political purges as administrative reform: This framing masks the potential for politically motivated actions, such as targeting agencies that enforce environmental regulations or protect civil rights.
Target agencies that constrain executive power: The Project 2025 document specifically calls for significant alterations or dismantling of agencies like the E.P.A., the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and potentially the Department of Homeland Security.
Weaken regulatory enforcement without changing laws: Project 2025 advocates for rescinding numerous regulations, streamlining permitting processes and reducing funding for agencies responsible for environmental protection and labor standards. This weakens enforcement without requiring the more challenging and public process of legislative change.
Replace career civil servants with loyalists: The project document repeatedly emphasizes the need for political appointees in key positions, even those traditionally held by career professionals. Project 2025 explicitly praises the idea of replacing career officials with “aligned political appointees,” ensuring the bureaucracy executes the executive’s agenda without resistance.Bloomberg Law reported Feb. 26:
…one Big Law partner said he’s never witnessed this level of concern in which firm leadership worries they could jeopardize their economic future by protecting the rule of law…
Adding to firm leaders’ concerns is that a few competitors have warmed up to Trump, a significant turnabout from when much of Big Law shunned the president following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
A team of defense lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell have taken over as Trump’s lawyers to appeal the president’s criminal conviction for hiding a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Jones Day, after previously winding down its Trump business, began to inch its way closer to Trump’s orbit before the election, and is now pitching itself to companies and executives as the go-to white collar practice to convince DOJ to ease up enforcement.
Sullivan & Cromwell adding Trump as a client raised eyebrows at other firms known for representing corporations under DOJ investigation. The risks of losing current or future clients to Trump-aligned firms has been squarely on the minds of executive committees grappling over whether to bless pro bono work for Trump’s DOJ targets…
