President Donald Trump's legal team is pressing New York Attorney General Letitia James to answer whether key evidence exists and is being preserved in the civil fraud case that once threatened him with nearly half a billion dollars in penalties. In a letter filed Thursday with the New York Supreme Court, Trump's attorneys argue that James failed to comply with a court order requiring her to detail her office's preservation practices and efforts.
The dispute centers on whether James's office has turned over all relevant materials, including communications with Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney who served as a star witness in the case. Trump's lawyers point to a January 2026 article by Cohen on the online platform Substack in which he claimed that, in meetings with lawyers from James's office, he had "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."
Cohen testified during the trial that Trump had routinely misrepresented the value of his properties and had given him target net-worth figures to meet. The judge in the case denied Trump's request for additional discovery but did require James to explain how her office maintains and preserves information. Trump's attorneys maintain she has not done so adequately.
"[New York Attorney General's Office] also 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 filing states. "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."
The back-and-forth is the latest development in the civil suit James brought against Trump in 2022, accusing him of habitually inflating the value of his properties to a fraudulent extent. After being found liable, Trump was ordered to pay $355 million plus interest in disgorgement and was banned from applying for loans from any New York bank or financial institution for three years. He was also barred from serving as an officer or director of any New York company for two years.
An appeals court later vacated the monetary penalties, but James has appealed to reinstate them. Trump, for his part, argues the case is fundamentally flawed and should be thrown out in its entirety.
Earlier this month, Trump's lawyers cited five key disqualifying weaknesses in the case. They argue that James lacked the authority to bring the suit, noting that the case involves private commercial transactions rather than harm to the public. They also contend that Trump's valuations reflected subjective estimates that lenders independently evaluated rather than fraudulent misrepresentations.
"The only supposed 'victims' here 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," the appeal states.
Trump's attorneys further argue that the prosecution's premise of overvaluation rests on the misguided idea that real estate has one objective value and that any deviation from that value must constitute fraud. "Under that breathtakingly broad theory, NYAG can second-guess any business transaction in this State on almost any imagined grounds," they wrote.
On the penalties, Trump's representation argues that the $450 million disgorgement is excessive, unlawful, and even unconstitutional. The appeal also contends that the politically charged nature of the case should have been enough to halt its consideration.
"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 filing states, referring to the state law Trump was accused of violating.
In response to an inquiry, James's office pointed to its own letter contending that it had met its disclosure requirements. "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," the letter reads. "Moreover, 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."