Federal judge reimposes a limited gag order in Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington has reimposed a narrow gag order barring him from making public comments targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss. She had temporarily lifted the gag order as she considered the Republican former president’s request to keep it on hold while he challenges the restrictions on his speech in higher courts.

But Chutkan on Sunday agreed to reinstate the order after prosecutors cited Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows that they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case.

“This statement would almost certainly violate the Order under any reasonable definition of ‘targeting,'” Chutkan wrote.

The order is a fresh reminder that Trump’s penchant for incendiary and bitter rants about the legal troubles he’s facing, though politically beneficial in rallying his supporters as he seeks to reclaim the White House, carry practical consequences in court. Two judges have now imposed orders mandating that he rein in his speech, with the jurist presiding over a civil fraud trial in New York issuing a monetary fine last week.

A request for comment was sent Sunday to a Trump attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump in a social media post late Sunday acknowledged that the gag order was back in place, calling it “NOT CONSITUTIONAL!”

Trump’s lawyers have said they will seek an emergency stay of the order from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The defense has said Trump is entitled to criticize prosecutors and “speak truth to oppression.”

Though Chutkan reinstated the gag order, she denied a request from special counsel Jack Smith’s team to make compliance with that order a condition of Trump’s release as he awaits trial.

“Even assuming that request is procedurally proper, the court concludes that granting it is not necessary to effectively enforce the Order at this time,” Chutkan wrote. She did not elaborate on how the order might be enforced.