Donald Trump’s lawyers have accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of dodging a court order to fully disclose how her office is handling and preserving potential evidence in the civil fraud case that nearly cost Trump $464 million, a move his team says raises new doubts about the fairness of the prosecution.

In a letter filed Thursday with the New York Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team argued that James’ office failed to comply with a judge’s demand for details on its “preservation practices” and “preservation efforts,” as the high-profile case heads toward a crucial reconsideration stage. Trump’s attorneys say the Attorney General’s Office has not been forthright about whether it holds, or is even preserving, key communications with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, whose testimony was central to the state’s civil fraud claims.

The dispute centers on whether James’ team has been transparent about how it handles evidence that could help Trump’s defense. Trump’s attorneys pointed to a January 16, 2026 Substack post by Cohen, in which he alleged he “felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgement and convictions against President Trump.” The lawyers now demand clarity on what records exist and whether they are being preserved, warning that the Attorney General’s vague assurances fall short of the court’s order.

Trump’s legal team argues that, “Instead of actually complying with the Order, NYAG has simply recited in general terms that her ‘standard litigation hold procedures’ have been in place since the investigation phase of this matter.” They also claim that the Attorney General’s Office “carefully avoids representing one way or the other whether any requested materials in fact exist, and, if they do, whether NYAG has confirmed that they are being preserved.”

The Attorney General’s Office responded by insisting it had satisfied its obligations, stating, “Insofar as Defendants have sought or are seeking more information about OAG’s specific preservation efforts, OAG objects to the demand for this extrajudicial discovery,” and, “OAG has completely satisfied its obligations under the Court’s Order for OAG to identify the preservation practices that existed and applied and continue to exist and apply.”

Trump’s lawyers demand evidence preservation details after Cohen’s coercion claim

Trump’s attorneys have zeroed in on possible undisclosed communications between James’ office and Michael Cohen. The January 16, 2026 Substack post by Cohen, referenced in the court filing, claimed he was “compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking,” raising new questions about the integrity of his testimony. Trump’s legal team is now seeking all transcripts, emails, letters, recordings, and notes of communications between the Attorney General’s Office and Cohen, arguing these records could support a motion to vacate the civil-fraud judgment and challenge James’ ongoing push to reinstate the massive penalty. The New York Post reports that James’ office has not confirmed whether it possesses or is preserving such records, further fueling the defense’s concerns.

Earlier this year, Trump was hit with a $355 million penalty (plus interest) and harsh business restrictions, including a ban on applying for loans from any New York financial institution for three years and a two-year ban on serving as an officer or director of any New York company. His legal team has called the $450 million disgorgement “excessive, unlawful, and unconstitutional,” and argues that the only supposed “victims” are “a handful of ultrasophisticated banks and insurers that have never claimed to be injured, were eager to do business with President Trump and his family, and made over $100 million from these transactions.”

Trump’s team alleges selective prosecution and lack of precedent

Trump’s lawyers have long maintained that the case against him is not only overreaching, but also unprecedented. In their latest filing, they argue, “NYAG cannot point to a single Section 63(12) enforcement action against similarly situated developers (or any other type of defendant) based on practices comparable to those alleged here.” The defense characterizes James’ approach as a “breathtakingly broad theory” that would let her “second-guess any business transaction in this State on almost any imagined grounds.”

This isn’t the first time James’ motives and methods have come under fire. As previously reported, a whistleblower from inside James’ office has alleged that staff were told to target Trump and his allies, adding fuel to the defense’s claim of political motivation behind the prosecution. The broader political climate in New York has only amplified scrutiny of James’ actions, as she faces growing criticism from both Republicans and factions within her own party.

Letitia James faces scrutiny as political tensions rise in New York

The battle over the Trump case is unfolding against a backdrop of political upheaval for Letitia James. Recent Democratic primaries in New York have seen Mamdani-backed candidates sweep past establishment figures, leaving James and her allies on the defensive. The split within the party and the rise of more radical challengers have only increased the stakes for James as she presses ahead with high-profile legal battles like the Trump suit.

Some observers have noted that the political crossfire is spilling into the courtroom. As the Fox News Digital reporting highlights, James brought the sweeping civil suit in 2022, accusing Trump of habitually inflating property values to defraud banks and insurers. While a judge initially imposed steep penalties, an appeals court later vacated the monetary penalties, prompting James to appeal in hopes of reinstating them.

Open questions and high stakes as case moves forward

Despite the latest legal skirmish, several questions remain unresolved. The exact date and time of the recent filing, the case name and docket number, and what specific communications involving Michael Cohen may exist are all unclear. What is clear is that the stakes are enormous, not just for Trump, but for the future of business prosecutions and political accountability in New York.

As the legal battle continues, the rift between the Democratic establishment and its challengers grows more pronounced. Internal fractures, as seen in recent primary routs and the shifting alliances in the state, have left James more exposed to criticism than ever. With the court yet to rule on the latest objections and with Trump’s team vowing to press for full disclosure, the case remains a flashpoint in the national debate over law, politics, and the limits of prosecutorial power.

When a prosecutor won’t answer basic questions about evidence, it’s not just the defendant who pays, it’s every citizen who expects fairness from the law.