As Trump targets law firms, most aren’t talking publicly. But resistance is forming.

The latest to be hit: Trump singled out Jenner & Block on Tuesday, citing its connection with another adversarial attorney, and then WilmerHale on Thursday, pointing to issues ranging from racial diversity practices to a longtime affiliation with former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Then there was the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launch last week of an investigation into 20 firms’ diversity recruitment practices, asking for hiring and job interviewing records since 2019; three of Boston’s five biggest firms — WilmerHale as well as Ropes & Gray and Goodwin Procter — landed on that hit list. Last weekend, the Trump administration issued a directive putting the entire legal sector on notice that firms or attorneys could be in trouble for “frivolous, unreasonable, or vexatious litigation against the United States.” (Immigration law was singled out as a particular sore spot.) One possible interpretation: Sue us, and we’ll come after you.

“The Trump administration is signaling to the world that they want to use the power they have in an extremely aggressive manner, in a way that hasn’t been done before,” said Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School. “They’re doing the same thing against universities that they see as potential irritants. It’s a systematic use of these levers that they have to reduce obstruction. ... It’s all about centralizing control.”

In this threatening climate, here’s how the local big firms responded to my inquiries about the various salvos: no comment or no response at all.

Understandably, none of them want a target on their backs. Like most of “Big Law,” they don’t want to talk about this issue publicly. But they’re certainly talking about it privately. After all, none of them have been through something like this before.

Perkins Coie is fighting back in court, while Paul, Weiss has already capitulated. The latter firm’s chair, Brad Karp, said Trump’s order posed an existential threat to the firm, with clients and attorneys looking to bolt as a result of the president’s order. Among other things, Paul, Weiss agreed to drop diversity policies and provide $40 million worth of pro bono legal work for causes supported by Trump.

Jeffrey Pokorak, a law professor at Suffolk University, said Paul, Weiss may still suffer, even if its battles with Trump are over. People of color may be less likely to consider applying to work there, he said, and potential clients could steer clear because the famed law firm now looks like a “wholly owned subsidiary of Trump Co.” Talented lawyers at the firm, he added, are already looking for an escape hatch.

Pokorak said he hasn’t seen the federal government target law firms since his early days as a lawyer, in the 1980s, during the federal government’s “War on Drugs.” The first Bush administration, he said, tried to haul law firms before grand juries because they represented drug dealers. The backlash in legal circles was swift, he recalled, and the administration backed off.

This new attack on law firms is much broader and multipronged. He expects many Big Law firms will be reluctant to take on the federal government now.

“There’s going to be a lot of keeping your head down,” he said, “and that means probably not pursuing big cases against the administration.”

Not everyone is staying silent. Victoria Santoro, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has been sounding the alarm for weeks. Trump’s order over the weekend, which implied that representing immigrants against the government could put you in the president’s crosshairs, motivated Santoro to reach out to other bar associations in the state on Tuesday about developing a united front for Massachusetts firms. The time has come, she said, for unified and collective action. While the form that resistance should take is still being worked out, she said law firms shouldn’t be targeted because they represent a particular client, no matter how unpopular, nor should particular practice areas.

“We want our law firms here to know that there is going to be a protective layer between them and the federal administration,” Santoro said. “What I do not want to see in our legal community here in Massachusetts is law firms being targeted and isolated and being forced into capitulation by the administration. ... If there’s anything we can see in the graduated executive orders, it’s that [the threats] won’t stop here.”

Pockets of resistance have emerged elsewhere, too. Most notably, hundreds of Big Law associates over the past two weeks have anonymously signed an open letter, with their firms’ names but not their own, chastising their bosses for staying quiet. One of the petition organizers, Rachel Cohen, gave her two weeks’ notice at Skadden’s Chicago office in frustration and spilled the details on LinkedIn, saying she could not stick with this career path if her industry allows “an authoritarian government to ignore the courts.”

On Wednesday, the American Bar Association released a petition of its own, signed by dozens of smaller bar associations, including Santoro’s group, speaking out against Trump administration efforts to punish law firms and judges.

And state attorneys general remain quite busy tangling with Trump over everything from cutbacks to research funds to the dissolution of the Department of Education. Well, at least the Democratic attorney generals are — Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has co-led five lawsuits against the administration and joined with three others, but told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce last week that her Republican counterparts go silent when she asks them to sign on.

These are strange times when attorneys at most Big Law firms don’t feel comfortable speaking their minds. For now, most of them seem to be trying to stay out of the crossfire — while wondering who might be next in line.

Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him @jonchesto.