Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has responded to a request from special counsel Jack Smith, arguing that only “genuinely sensitive materials” should be shielded from public view in the case regarding Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In a court filing, Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro proposed a much narrower protective order than what Smith had suggested, stating that a less restrictive alternative would protect the confidentiality interests of the government while preserving Trump’s First Amendment rights and the rights of the public.
The defense team specified that only material categorized as “sensitive,” such as grand jury information, sealed search warrant-derived material, and personal details, should be blocked from public disclosure throughout the legal proceedings. They acknowledged the government’s interest in restricting certain documents but argued that it did not warrant a blanket gag order on all documents produced by the government.
Trump is facing four criminal counts related to his alleged attempts to obstruct the transfer of power to President Biden after the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Smith, in a court filing last Friday, expressed his readiness to provide a substantial amount of evidence to the defense team but requested a protective order to prevent Trump and his attorneys from improperly disclosing the evidence. The proposed order would limit the disclosure of materials provided by the United States in connection with the case.
Smith emphasized the importance of restrictions on public disclosure, citing Trump’s social media posts that have targeted individuals associated with legal matters against him. The special counsel stated that public dissemination of sensitive information obtained during discovery could have a detrimental effect on witnesses and the fair administration of justice in the case.
Trump’s campaign responded to Smith’s concerns by stating that the Truth Social post mentioned in the court filing was in response to attacks by “dishonest special interest groups” and political committees. In their court filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the government failed to connect the post to the potential dissemination of grand jury transcripts or sensitive information.
Trump’s legal team had requested more time to respond to the government’s request for a protective order, but U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the request, maintaining the Monday afternoon deadline. Prior to the deadline, Trump took to Truth Social to criticize Smith and Chutkan, claiming that a protective order would impede upon his right to free speech.
As the case continues, the debate over the scope of the protective order highlights the tensions between protecting sensitive information and preserving First Amendment rights. The court will ultimately decide the level of restrictions on public disclosure in the case involving Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.