President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a new motion in New York Supreme Court on Thursday, pressing Attorney General Letitia James to reveal the specific preservation practices used in the civil fraud case that could cost the former real‑estate mogul up to $450 million.
Letter alleges non‑compliance with court order
In the filing, Trump’s lawyers contend that the AG’s office failed to obey a court order requiring it to describe both the preservation methods and the actual efforts undertaken to safeguard relevant documents. The attorneys argue that James has only offered generic statements about “standard litigation hold procedures” without confirming whether the requested materials even exist.
Key evidence allegedly withheld
The lawyers assert that James may be withholding communications with Michel Cohen, a former Trump attorney who testified as a star witness. Cohen’s January 16, 2026 Substack article claims he felt pressured by James’s staff to provide only testimony that would aid the government’s case against President Trump.
Background of the civil suit
The lawsuit, filed by the New York Attorney General in 2022, accuses Trump of habitually inflating the value of his properties to obtain favorable financing. After a trial, a judge ordered Trump to pay $355 million in disgorgement plus interest and barred him from borrowing from New York banks for three years. An appeals court later vacated those monetary penalties, but James has continued to seek reinstatement.
Trump’s legal arguments
In the latest filing, Trump’s counsel outlined five principal defenses. They claim the AG lacks authority because the dispute involves private commercial transactions, not public harm. They also argue that the valuations at issue were subjective estimates vetted by lenders, not fraudulent misrepresentations. The attorneys further contend that the only “victims” are sophisticated banks and insurers that voluntarily did business with Trump and earned over $100 million from the deals.
Additionally, the team challenges the legal theory that real‑estate values are objective and that any deviation must constitute fraud, describing it as an overly broad standard that could let the AG second‑guess any business transaction. They label the $450 million disgorgement award as excessive, unlawful, and potentially unconstitutional, and argue that the politically charged nature of the case alone should halt its progress.
AG’s response
James’s office responded by pointing to a letter sent to Fox News Digital, asserting that it has satisfied all disclosure obligations under the court’s order.
The dispute over discovery and the broader merits of the case are likely to continue as both sides prepare for further appellate proceedings.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
