Special Counsel Jack Smith is seeking a gag order against former President Trump regarding statements about law enforcement officers involved in the case. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has set a hearing for June 24 to consider prosecutors’ request to modify the conditions of release for Trump in the Southern District of Florida, where he faces charges related to mishandling classified documents. The prosecution wants to ensure that Trump does not make statements that could endanger law enforcement agents working on the case. If Trump violates his release conditions, he could face arrest, detention, and other penalties. The case involves sealed documents related to classified information, and Judge Cannon has ordered the release of some non-sensitive information. Trump’s claims about law enforcement actions have led prosecutors to request a gag order, citing concerns for the safety of agents involved in the case. Defense attorneys argue that such an order would be unconstitutional and overly broad.
Not a single FBI agent who participated in the raid submitted an affidavit, or even an argument, claiming that President Trump’s remarks put them at risk.
Without any evidence that former President Trump’s recent statements mentioning law enforcement have caused harassment, threats, or intimidation, defense counsel argued that the risk prosecutors cite remains hypothetical and cannot support a gag order.
They argued that former President Trump has a right to criticize the government and methods used by its agencies and that the prosecution’s response to such speech has been outsized.
The proposed gag order is broad enough to allow prosecutors “to seek President Trump’s arrest and temporary detention any time he said something they disagreed with—including but not limited to statements on the debate stage, the campaign trail, on social media, and potentially even including communications by President Trump’s campaign staff,” according to the defense.
The judge will hear these arguments in an afternoon session on June 24. The morning will be devoted to arguments regarding whether the special counsel’s appointment violates the appropriation clause, a continuation of last week’s hearing on the defense’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed.
