‘Let Trump Speak Act’ to Ban Gag Orders Proposed in US House

The bill would dramatically restrict judges from issuing gag orders.
‘Let Trump Speak Act’ to Ban Gag Orders Proposed in US House
(Left) Judge Juan M. Merchan poses in his chambers in New York on March 14, 2024. (Right) Former President Donald Trump at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on March 25, 2024. (Seth Wenig/AP Photo; Spencer Platt/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Jack Phillips
5/16/2024
Updated:
5/16/2024
0:00

A Republican lawmaker introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to block judges from issuing gag orders after several judges imposed such orders on former President Donald Trump.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced the measure, called the “Let Trump Speak Act,” this week in response to a gag order that New York Judge Juan Merchan imposed on the former president to bar him from speaking about certain individuals connected to the Manhattan trial.

“No judge of the United States or of any State may issue a gag order to the defendant in any criminal or civil proceedings except to prevent the disclosure of confidential information provided in discovery, to protect the privacy of minors, or as part of a plea agreement,” the proposed bill’s text said.

In a post on social media Wednesday, Mr. Ogles framed his bill as a means to “ensure” that the “rights of all Americans are preserved,” including those of President Trump. Ten other Republicans support the measure.

The proposed measure would allow people who received a gag order to “commence a civil action seeking injunctive relief” and that nothing in the proposed measure could be “construed as limiting a judge’s authority to issue orders to officers of the court.”

The proposed measure’s introduction in the House comes as the New York appeals court rejected another Trump attempt to reverse Judge Merchan’s gag order. His campaign confirmed Wednesday that they filed a notice of appeal to New York’s highest court.

A panel of five judges wrote they found that Judge Merchan “properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm.”

The former president’s attorneys argued that their client’s constitutional rights were being violated by Judge Merchan, namely as he campaigns for the 2024 election as the leading Republican presidential candidate.

Issued in March and expanded weeks later, the gag order prevents President Trump from speaking about potential witnesses, current witnesses, court staff, members of Judge Merchan’s family, and jury members. He is allowed to speak about the judge and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against him.

The judge found that President Trump made multiple violations with social media posts and comments to the media, warning that he could be jailed if he continues to speak about the case. Since then, the former president has only made limited remarks about the trial, only targeting the case itself, the judge, and Mr. Bragg.

Among other posts, the judge flagged reposts President Trump made of a New York Post article that described his former lawyer Michael Cohen as a “serial perjurer,” and a post quoting Fox News host Jesse Watters’ claim that liberal activists were lying to infiltrate the jury pool.

The judge also penalized the former president for an April 13 social media post asking, “Has disgraced attorney and felon Michael Cohen been prosecuted for LYING? Only TRUMP people get prosecuted by this Judge and these thugs!”

Specifically, according to court papers, the former president challenged restrictions on his ability to comment about Matthew Colangelo, a former Justice Department official who is a part of the prosecution team, and Judge Merchan’s daughter, whose firm has worked for President Joe Biden and other Democrats.

President Trump first appealed the gag order on April 8, just days before the start of jury selection. At an emergency hearing before a single judge of the Appellate Division, his lawyers argued the order was an unconstitutional curb on the Republican presidential nominee’s free speech rights while he’s campaigning and fighting criminal charges.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter with 15 years experience who started as a local New York City reporter. Having joined The Epoch Times' news team in 2009, Jack was born and raised near Modesto in California's Central Valley. Follow him on X: https://twitter.com/jackphillips5
twitter