Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

{{Further|Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election}}

Throughout his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly sowed doubt on the election certification process. Campaigning in Colorado, Trump claimed without evidence that the Democratic Party "[rigged] the election at polling booths".{{Sfn|Bowden|Teague|2022|p=1}} In October 2016, Trump claimed through a series of tweets that widespread voter fraud would occur in the 2016 presidential election. These statements were echoed by Rudy Giuliani, Trump's legal advisor.{{Cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797 |title=US election 2016: Trump says election 'rigged at polling places' |date=October 17, 2016 |work=BBC News |access-date=February 16, 2023 |archive-date=June 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210618095922/https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797 |url-status=live }} Trump continued expressing these sentiments into the 2020 presidential election; for months, he prepared arguments in the event of his loss, primarily relating to mail-in ballots.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/magazine/trump-voter-fraud.html |title=The Attack on Voting in the 2020 Elections |date=September 30, 2020 |last=Rutenberg |first=Jim |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116050743/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/magazine/trump-voter-fraud.html |url-status=live }} As early as August 2020, he enlisted conservative activist and lawyer Cleta Mitchell to help overturn the election.{{Cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/cleta-mitchell-election-assistance-commission-advisor/index.html |title=How a lawyer who aided Trump's 2020 subversion efforts was named to a federal election advisory board |date=November 18, 2021 |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Gallagher |first2=Dianne |work=CNN |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801235213/https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/cleta-mitchell-election-assistance-commission-advisor/index.html |url-status=live }} The Department of Homeland Security warned that Russia was amplifying claims of fraud occurring in mail-in voting to intentionally sow distrust in the voting process as a whole.{{Cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/russia-intel-bulletin-mail-in-voting-warning/index.html |title=Intelligence bulletin warns Russia amplifying false claims mail-in voting will lead to widespread fraud |date=September 4, 2020 |last=Cohen |first=Zachary |work=CNN |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=December 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212155950/https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/politics/russia-intel-bulletin-mail-in-voting-warning/index.html |url-status=live }} Two days before Election Day, Trump told reporters that he would be "going in with [his] lawyers" as soon as the election was over.{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/02/trump-lawyers-election-biden-pennsylvania/ |title=Trump says that as soon as Election Day ends, 'we're going in with our lawyers' |date=November 2, 2020 |last=Elfrink |first=Tim |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=March 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313164225/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/02/trump-lawyers-election-biden-pennsylvania/ |url-status=live }}

Bolstered by pro-Trump pundits and perceived strong turnouts at rallies, the Trump campaign was confident that they were going to win the election. On Election Day, preliminary surveys at polling places showed Trump in the lead as his supporters were more likely to turn out in person amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but his lead diminished as mail-in ballots were counted. Following Trump's final campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump's son Eric wagered that he would win at least 322 electoral votes.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html |title=77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election |date=January 31, 2021 |last1=Rutenberg |first1=Jim |last2=Becker |first2=Jo |last3=Lipton |first3=Eric |last4=Haberman |first4=Maggie |last5=Martin |first5=Jonathan |last6=Rosenberg |first6=Matthew |last7=Schmidt |first7=Michael |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=February 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201000107/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html |url-status=live }} At the behest of Giuliani, Trump declared in a 2 a.m. election night speech in the East Room that he had won the election and that the counts being reported were fraudulent.{{Sfn|Leonnig|Rucker|2021|p=346-347}} As ballots were being counted, campaign data expert Matt Oczkowski bluntly informed Trump that he was going to lose the election. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told him that invalidating the results of the election would be a "murder-suicide pact".{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/politics/trump-jan-6-criminal-case.html |title=Panel Suggests Trump Knew He Lost the Election, Eyeing Criminal Case |date=March 3, 2022 |last1=Broadwater |first1=Luke |last2=Feuer |first2=Alan |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=August 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815043507/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/politics/trump-jan-6-criminal-case.html |url-status=live }} Under then-attorney general William Barr, the Department of Justice failed to find widespread voter fraud in the election.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html |title=Barr Acknowledges Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud |date=December 1, 2020 |last1=Benner |first1=Katie |last2=Schmidt |first2=Michael |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801235213/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html |url-status=live }} Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich predicted that Trump voters would erupt in "rage",{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/fox-news-trump-fraud-claims.html |title=Fox News Meets Trump's Fraud Claims With Skepticism |date=November 5, 2020 |last1=Hsu |first1=Tiffany |last2=Koblin |first2=John |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=November 8, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108043644/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/fox-news-trump-fraud-claims.html |url-status=live }} a sentiment shared by House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, who told Laura Ingraham on The Ingraham Angle that Republicans should not "be silent about this".{{Cite web |url=https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21552446/trump-loss-biden-kevin-mccarthy-lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-newt-gingrich |title=Key Republicans quickly fall in line behind Trump's attempt to undermine the election |date=November 6, 2020 |last=Rupar |first=Aaron |work=Vox |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801235210/https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21552446/trump-loss-biden-kevin-mccarthy-lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-newt-gingrich |url-status=live }}

Trump and several co-conspirators repeatedly sought to overturn the results of the election. The Department of Justice investigation into these attempts focused on the implementation of the Trump fake electors plot, in which Trump and his allies would draft allegedly fraudulent certificates of ascertainment affirming Trump as the winner. The effort to write these documents and persuade Republican officials to sign them was performed by Trump's lawyers, including Giuliani and John Eastman, who claimed that irregularities in the election had occurred and proposed that an "alternate" slate of electors should be established while they gathered evidence. Although dozens of these electors were installed and affirmed Trump as the winner, the seven state legislatures targeted in the plot{{snd}}Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin{{snd}}certified Biden's victory, although Pennsylvania and New Mexico agreed to consider Trump the winner if he succeeded in the many lawsuits challenging the election. The scheme involved sending the fake electoral slates to vice president Mike Pence, pressuring him to count the fake votes. Alternatively, Trump allies posited that Pence could consider the election "defective" under the Electoral Count Act and allow the House of Representatives to decide the outcome.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html |title=The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained |date=July 27, 2022 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Benner |first2=Katie |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801003628/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html |url-status=live }}

During the two months following the election, Trump made multiple phone calls to Republican officials in states that had narrowly been won by Biden, asking them to reverse the results and give the victory to him. One such call was to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, asking him to "find 11,780 votes". Raffensperger recorded the call and subsequently released it to the public.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html|title=Trump, in Taped Call, Pressured Georgia Official to 'Find' Votes to Overturn Election|last1=Shear|first1=Michael D.|last2=Saul|first2=Stephanie|date=May 26, 2021|work=The New York Times|access-date=August 5, 2023|archive-date=January 4, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210104002713/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html|url-status=live}} Both Trump and Giuliani called Rusty Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, asking him to look into claims of fraud, but he declined to do so without evidence. John Eastman also called Bowers on January 4 asking him to undo the state's certification of Biden's win, but he refused.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106413341/arizona-lawmaker-rusty-bowers-pressure-giuliani|title=Arizona lawmaker Rusty Bowers details the pressure put on him by Trump and Giuliani|last=Bustillo|first=Ximena|date=June 21, 2022|work=NPR|access-date=August 5, 2023|archive-date=August 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230805110603/https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106413341/arizona-lawmaker-rusty-bowers-pressure-giuliani|url-status=live}} Trump and his attorneys, as well as Republican members of Congress, also called or met with state officials in Michigan and Pennsylvania, urging them to report that Trump had actually won their states.{{cite web|url=https://kansasreflector.com/2022/06/21/trump-led-pressure-campaign-on-state-election-officials-jan-6-panel-says/|title=Trump led pressure campaign on state election officials, Jan. 6 panel says|last=Fischler|first=Jacob|date=June 21, 2022|work=Kansas Reflector|access-date=August 5, 2023|archive-date=August 5, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230805163619/https://kansasreflector.com/2022/06/21/trump-led-pressure-campaign-on-state-election-officials-jan-6-panel-says/|url-status=live}}

On December 19, 2020, six weeks following his election loss, Trump urged his followers on Twitter to protest in Washington, D.C., on January 6, the day Congress was set to certify the results of the election, writing, "Be there, will be wild!" Over the course of the following weeks, Trump would repeat the January 6 date. The Proud Boys worked out where in DC to meet, and how to get to the United States Capitol. The Red-State Secession{{Who|date=December 2024}} Facebook page encouraged its followers to post the addresses of its "enemies" including federal judges. Trump continued to repeat false claims about the election in multiple states leading up to January 6, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona.{{Sfn|United States Department of Justice|2023|p=8-9}} On the morning of January 6, Trump gave a speech in the Ellipse, a park near the White House, and encouraged his followers to walk down to Pennsylvania Avenue to incite within Republicans lawmakers the "kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country". Provoked by Trump, the mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html |title='Be There. Will Be Wild!': Trump All but Circled the Date |date=January 6, 2021 |last1=Barry |first1=Dan |last2=Frenkel |first2=Sheera |work=The New York Times |access-date=July 18, 2023 |archive-date=December 28, 2021 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20211228/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html |url-status=live | url-access= subscription}}

{{Further|Smith special counsel investigation#Investigation of attempts to overturn 2020 election}}

The January 6 Capitol attack resulted in hundreds of criminal proceedings.{{Cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1165022885/1000-defendants-january-6-capitol-riot |title=1,000 people have been charged for the Capitol riot. Here's where their cases stand |date=March 25, 2023 |last1=Anderson |first1=Meg |last2=McMillan |first2=Nick |work=NPR |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=July 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230731194150/https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1165022885/1000-defendants-january-6-capitol-riot |url-status=live }} The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for a second time on January 13.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html |title=Trump Impeached for Inciting Insurrection |date=January 13, 2021 |last=Fandos |first=Nicholas |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=January 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114194633/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html |url-status=live }} He was acquitted by the Senate on February 13.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html |title=Trump Acquitted of Inciting Insurrection, Even as Bipartisan Majority Votes 'Guilty' |date=February 13, 2021 |last=Fandos |first=Nicholas |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=February 19, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219113130/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html |url-status=live }} The House of Representatives voted to create a select committee to investigate the attack in June 2021.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/us/house-jan-6-capitol-riot.html |title=House Opens Jan. 6 Investigation Over Republican Opposition |date=June 30, 2021 |last=Broadwater |first=Luke |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802013840/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/us/house-jan-6-capitol-riot.html |url-status=live }} Ahead of its final report, the committee voted to recommend charging Trump of four charges{{Cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc |title=Trump indicted for efforts to overturn 2020 election and block transfer of power |date=August 1, 2023 |last1=Tucker |first1=Eric |last2=Kunzelman |first2=Michael |work=Associated Press |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801213816/https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc |url-status=live }} and referred him to the Department of Justice.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept.html |title=Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept. |date=December 19, 2022 |last=Broadwater |first=Luke |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=July 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230731213730/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept.html |url-status=live }} Two of the four charges recommended by the Select Committee were ultimately brought against him in the indictment, with the charges of "inciting or assisting those in an insurrection" (18 U.S.C. § 2383) notably not in the indictment nor "Conspiracy to Make a False Statement" (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001).

In a CNN interview in January 2022, deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco stated that the Department of Justice would investigate the Trump fake electors plot.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/justice-department-trump.html |title=Justice Dept. Is Reviewing Role of Fake Trump Electors, Top Official Says |date=January 25, 2022 |last=Benner |first=Katie |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802012532/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/justice-department-trump.html |url-status=live }} By March 2022, the Department of Justice had opened an investigation into the events of January 6 and Trump's attempts to overturn the election.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/justice-dept-widens-jan-6-inquiry.html |title=Justice Dept. Widens Jan. 6 Inquiry to Range of Pro-Trump Figures |date=March 30, 2022 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Benner |first2=Katie |last3=Haberman |first3=Maggie |author-link3=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=April 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220404062953/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/us/politics/justice-dept-widens-jan-6-inquiry.html |url-status=live }} The Department of Justice began obtaining White House phone records in April in connection with the January 6 investigation,{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/us/politics/trump-allies-january-6.html |title=Justice Dept. Investigation of Jan. 6 Confronts Sprawling Cast of Characters |date=April 5, 2022 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Broadwater |first2=Luke |last3=Haberman |first3=Maggie |author-link3=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=April 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220407002224/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/us/politics/trump-allies-january-6.html |url-status=live }} and a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to Trump's lawyers in connection with the fake electors plot in May.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/pro-trump-lawyers-elector-scheme.html |title=Intensifying Inquiry Into Alternate Electors Focuses on Trump Lawyers |date=May 25, 2022 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Benner |first2=Katie |last3=Broadwater |first3=Luke |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802163033/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/pro-trump-lawyers-elector-scheme.html |url-status=live }} The Washington Post reported in July that the Department of Justice was investigating Trump's actions on January 6.{{Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/ |title=Justice Dept. investigating Trump's actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe |date=July 26, 2022 |last1=Leonnig |first1=Carol |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin |last3=Dawsey |first3=Josh |last4=Hsu |first4=Spencer |author-link1=Carol Leonnig |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804133342/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/ |url-status=live }} The January 6 investigation was overseen by Thomas Windom, an obscure federal prosecutor.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html |title=The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trump's Push to Keep Power |date=June 28, 2022 |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |last2=Feuer |first2=Alan |last3=Schmidt |first3=Michael |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=June 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220629020613/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html |url-status=live }}

On November 18, 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to serve as special counsel for the January 6 investigation and the FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/18/us/trump-garland-special-counsel |title=Garland Names Special Counsel for Trump Inquiries |date=November 18, 2022 |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |author-link=Glenn Thrush |last2=Savage |first2=Charlie |author-link2=Charlie Savage (author) |last3=Haberman |first3=Maggie |author-link3=Maggie Haberman |last4=Feuer |first4=Alan |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=May 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230526044618/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/18/us/trump-garland-special-counsel |url-status=live }} Smith intensified both investigations ahead of increased efforts by Trump to focus on his 2024 presidential campaign.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump-investigations.html |title=Jack Smith, Special Counsel for Trump Inquiries, Steps Up the Pace |date=February 12, 2023 |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn |last3=Feuer |first3=Alan |author-link1=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 3, 2023 |archive-date=March 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310035041/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump-investigations.html |url-status=live }} In June 2023, Trump was indicted in connection with the classified documents investigation.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-charges-classified-documents.html |title=Trump Put National Secrets at Risk, Prosecutors Say in Historic Indictment |date=June 9, 2023 |last1=Thrush |first1=Glenn |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |last3=Feuer |first3=Alan |author-link2=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 3, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802234642/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-charges-classified-documents.html |url-status=live }} Leading up to Trump's indictment in the January 6 investigation, prosecutors continued investigating several strands, including through hundreds of documents provided by former New York Police Department commissioner Bernard Kerik.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/us/politics/jan-6-indictment-decision.html |title=Prosecutors Follow Multiple Strands as Jan. 6 Indictment Decision Looms |date=July 25, 2023 |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |author-link2=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 3, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802234632/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/us/politics/jan-6-indictment-decision.html |url-status=live }} On July 18, Trump was given a target letter.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/us/politics/trump-jan-6-target-letter.html |title=Trump Says He's Target in Special Counsel's Investigation Into Jan. 6 |date=July 18, 2023 |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn |last3=Goldman |first3=Adam |last4=Feuer |first4=Alan |author-link1=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 3, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802155702/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/us/politics/trump-jan-6-target-letter.html |url-status=live }} The following week, his lawyers met with prosecutors, signaling the investigation was nearly complete.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/us/politics/trump-jan-6-special-counsel.html |title=Trump's Lawyers Meet With Prosecutors as Election Interference Charges Loom |date=July 27, 2023 |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |last2=Feuer |first2=Alan |last3=Protess |first3=Ben |last4=Thrush |first4=Glenn |author-link1=Maggie Haberman |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 3, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802230730/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/us/politics/trump-jan-6-special-counsel.html |url-status=live }}

File:USA v Trump-Jan6 Indictment.pdf

File:Statement of Special Counsel Jack Smith 2023-08-01.webm delivers remarks announcing the indictment]]

The original indictment was unsealed on August 1, 2023. A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiring to do so, and conspiracy against rights.{{Cite web |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |author-link2=Maggie Haberman |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Trump Indictment: Trump 'Spread Lies' in Effort to Cling to Power, Indictment Says |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/01/us/trump-indictment-jan-6 |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801213542/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/01/us/trump-indictment-jan-6 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Lybrand |first2=Holmes |last3=Cohen |first3=Marshall |last4=Cohen |first4=Zachary |last5=Cole |first5=Devan |last6=Rabinowitz |first6=Hannah |last7=Polantz |first7=Katelyn |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Donald Trump has been indicted in special counsel's 2020 election interference probe |language=en |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/donald-trump-indictment-grand-jury-2020-election/index.html |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801220818/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/donald-trump-indictment-grand-jury-2020-election/index.html |url-status=live }} D.C. district judge Tanya S. Chutkan was randomly assigned to hear the case.{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/tanya-chutkan-judge-assigned-trumps-election-case-rcna97852|title=Who is Tanya Chutkan, the judge assigned to Trump's election case?|last=Richards|first=Zoe|date=August 2, 2023|work=NBC News|access-date=August 7, 2023|archive-date=August 6, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230806235227/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/tanya-chutkan-judge-assigned-trumps-election-case-rcna97852|url-status=live}}

According to the indictment, on December{{nbsp}}8, 2020, a senior campaign advisor admitted that "our research and campaign legal team can't back up any of the claims{{nbsp}}... It's tough to own any of this when it's all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership."{{Sfn|United States Department of Justice|2023|p=13}} On January 1, Trump learned that Mike Pence did not believe the vice president could reject electoral votes. Trump called Pence and told him, "You're too honest."{{Sfn|United States Department of Justice|2023|p=33}} On January{{nbsp}}3, it is alleged that White House deputy counsel Patrick F. Philbin privately said that if Trump held onto power, there would be "riots in every major city in the United States", to which "Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}4" (likely Jeffrey Clark) replied "That's why there's an Insurrection Act",{{Sfn|United States Department of Justice|2023|p=30}} implying that Trump could command the military to keep himself in power.{{Cite web |last=Vlachou |first=Marita |date=August 10, 2023 |title=Rep. Zoe Lofgren Spots 1 'Chilling' Detail In Trump's Indictment |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zoe-lofgren-trump-indictment-jan-6_n_64d4a8a8e4b03c1d7392c076 |access-date=August 10, 2023 |website=HuffPost |language=en |archive-date=August 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230810114622/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zoe-lofgren-trump-indictment-jan-6_n_64d4a8a8e4b03c1d7392c076 |url-status=live }} The indictment also described a previously unreported discussion between Trump and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in which Cipollone advised Trump, hours after the Capitol riot started, to drop his objections to the election. Trump refused.

Trump appeared before magistrate judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on August{{nbsp}}3. Smith was present at the arraignment,{{Cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Special counsel Jack Smith is present for Trump's first appearance in election subversion case |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-arraignment-january-6-indictment/h_27d1168477f88b8243ec697874c170ab |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230803200412/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-arraignment-january-6-indictment/h_27d1168477f88b8243ec697874c170ab |archive-date=August 3, 2023 |access-date=August 3, 2023 |work=CNN}} as were Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran and chief judge James Boasberg.{{cite news |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Trump in Court on Charges He Plotted to Overturn 2020 Election |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/03/us/trump-arraignment-news |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230803201201/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/03/us/trump-arraignment-news |archive-date=August 3, 2023 |access-date=August 3, 2023 |work=The New York Times}} In the courtroom, Trump was joined by lawyers Todd Blanche and John Lauro; prosecutors Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston were joined by a special agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to each count, and prosecutors confirmed they would not seek pre-trial detention.

On August 27, 2024, the special counsel issued a superseding indictment that maintained the same four charges but omitted some specific allegations.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has maintained that issuing the superseding indictment did not violate any election-related Justice Department rules. The Justice Department has a policy not to overtly investigate any candidate within 60 days before an election; the superseding indictment was issued 70 days before the November 5 election. Further, Garland said, the Justice Department issued the new indictment "to respond to the direct instructions of the Supreme Court".{{Cite web |first1=Jeremy |last1=Herb |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz |first3=Holmes |last3=Lybrand |first4=Katelyn |last4=Polantz |first5=Tierney |last5=Sneed |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge holds hearing in election interference case against Donald Trump |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_8c430c4789a1fef15c9e2f30f56f08dd |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} Though Trump's team argued that the superseding indictment should be invalid due to its timing so close to an election, Judge Chutkan said she would not consider this argument.{{Cite web |first1=Jeremy |last1=Herb |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz |first3=Holmes |last3=Lybrand |first4=Katelyn |last4=Polantz |first5=Tierney |last5=Sneed |date=September 5, 2024 |title=Judge says she won't factor the election into her decisions as Trump team argues about timing |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_91c5a049af5eabfc37721cfa01e74469 |access-date=September 5, 2024 |website=CNN}}

On September 3, Trump submitted a court filing in which he once again pleaded not guilty. He waived his right to appear at his second arraignment{{Cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Polantz |first2=Katelyn |date=2024-09-03 |title=Donald Trump pleads not guilty in special counsel's retooled January 6 case |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/03/politics/trump-not-guilty-plea-january-6-charges-smith/index.html |access-date=2024-09-03 |website=CNN |language=en}} and did not attend. He was represented at the hearing by Lauro, Blanche, and Emil Bove.{{Cite web |first1=Jeremy |last1=Herb |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz |first3=Holmes |last3=Lybrand |first4=Katelyn |last4=Polantz |first5=Tierney |last5=Sneed |date=2024-09-05 |title=Here's who is representing Trump during his election interference case hearing |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_0768d3babb1c61b976cf0e64ed3765f6 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} As of {{As of|2024|September|5|df=US|pre=his second arraignment on|bare=no}}, he has not yet appeared in person before Judge Chutkan.{{Cite web |last1=Reid |first1=Paula |last2=Gannon |first2=Casey |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge holds hearing in election interference case against Donald Trump |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_a5c3965d8762c4d1ad501ecc884d4a25 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

At the September 5 hearing, Trump's lawyers argued that they were dealing with a new indictment. Judge Chutkan disagreed, observing that the four charges remained the same and that the related allegations had been reduced: "It's not more stuff, it's less."{{Cite web |first1=Jeremy |last1=Herb |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz |first3=Holmes |last3=Lybrand |first4=Katelyn |last4=Polantz |first5=Tierney |last5=Sneed |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge moves on to Supreme Court decision limiting obstruction charges against January 6 rioters |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_9faf195452d742b18a6eb5bb3f72222f |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

{{Too much detail|yes|nosplit=yes|details=the changes should be succinctly stated in no more than a few paragraphs|date=January 2025}}

The original and superseding indictments are similar. The original contains 130 numbered statements, and the superseding contains 106.

Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k).

Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2.

Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

The original indictment referenced six co-conspirators. Although they were not named in the indictment, news agencies reported their likely identities based on public information. The indictment did not charge them.{{Cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Devlin |last2=Hsu |first2=Spencer S. |last3=Stein |first3=Perry |last4=Dawsey |first4=Josh |last5=Alemany |first5=Jacqueline |date=August 2, 2023 |title=Trump charged in probe of Jan. 6, efforts to overturn 2020 election |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/trump-indictment-jan-6-2020-election/ |access-date=August 2, 2023 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801233818/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/trump-indictment-jan-6-2020-election/ |url-status=live }}

• Co-conspirator No. 1: Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as confirmed by his lawyer, Robert Costello, who claimed the indictment "eviscerates the First Amendment".
• Co-conspirator No. 2: Trump lawyer John Eastman, as confirmed by his lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, who claimed Eastman would be exonerated.{{cite news |last1=Dienst |first1=Jonathan |last2=Paulsen |first2=Diana |title=John Eastman is unindicted co-conspirator No. 2, his lawyer says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-live-updates-grand-jury-2020-election-probe-arrives-courthouse-rcna96825#rcrd16113 |work=NBC News |date=August 1, 2023 |access-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802001048/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-live-updates-grand-jury-2020-election-probe-arrives-courthouse-rcna96825#rcrd16113 |url-status=live }}
• Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}3: Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. CNN noted that the dates of a "lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia" mentioned in the indictment align with a lawsuit filed by Powell. On October 19, Powell pleaded guilty in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution (in which Trump is named as a co-defendant) in an agreement with prosecutors to testify against other defendants in future trials.{{cite news |last=Brumback |first=Kate |date=October 19, 2023 |title=Sidney Powell pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump's loss in Georgia and agrees to cooperate |work=Associated Press |url=https://apnews.com/article/sidney-powell-plea-deal-georgia-election-indictment-ec7dc601ad78d756643aa2544028e9f5|access-date=October 30, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |last2=Ogunbayo |first2=Morayo |last3=Valencia |first3=Nick |date=October 20, 2023|title=Trump attorney Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election subversion case |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/sidney-powell-fulton-county-georgia-2020-election-subversion/index.html |access-date=October 30, 2023}}
• Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}4: Trump lawyer Jeffrey Clark. CNN matched quotes of an email in the indictment with quotes from a Senate report. Clark was omitted from the superseding indictment in August 2024.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-brings-new-indictment-against-trump-election-subversion-case-2024-08-27/|title=Donald Trump faces revised US indictment in election subversion case|newspaper=Reuters|date=28 August 2024|first1=Andrew|last1=Goudsward|first2=Sarah|last2=Lynch |access-date=13 September 2024 }}
• Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}5: Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro. CNN referred to information released by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.{{cite web |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Who are the Trump co-conspirators in the 2020 election interference indictment? |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/co-conspirators-trump-indictment/index.html |access-date=August 2, 2023 |website=CNN |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802003809/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/co-conspirators-trump-indictment/index.html |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |last2=Savage |first2=Charlie |last3=Broadwater |first3=Luke |title=Previously Secret Memo Laid Out Strategy for Trump to Overturn Biden's Win - The House Jan. 6 committee's investigation did not uncover the memo, whose existence first came to light in last week's indictment. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/us/politics/trump-indictment-fake-electors-memo.html |date=August 8, 2023 |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230809142035/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/us/politics/trump-indictment-fake-electors-memo.html |archive-date=August 9, 2023 |access-date=August 10, 2023 }} On October 20, Chesebro pleaded guilty in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution in exchange for testimony at future trials.{{cite news |last=Brumback |first=Kate |date=October 20, 2023 |title=Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 loss in Georgia |work=Associated Press |url=https://apnews.com/article/chesebro-jury-selection-georgia-election-indictment-2e558eefdffd9c1eaa7ec8c31bf76044 |access-date=October 30, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Marshall |last2=Valencia |first2=Nick |last3=Tamsett |first3=Maxime |last4=Chaparro |first4=Fabiana |date=October 20, 2023 |title=Kenneth Chesebro: Pro-Trump lawyer pleads guilty in Georgia election subversion case, implicates Trump in fake elector conspiracy |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/politics/kenneth-chesebro-georgia-election-subversion/index.html |access-date=October 30, 2023}}
• Co-conspirator No. 6: A "political consultant" who allegedly named attorneys in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin "who could assist in the fraudulent elector effort". On December 13, 2020, this person joined a phone call with Rudy Giuliani and a senior campaign advisor for Trump.{{Cite web |last=Blumenthal |first=Paul |date=August 2, 2023 |title=Who Are The Co-Conspirators In Trump's Jan. 6 Indictment? |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-indictment-conspirators_n_64c9975de4b03ad2b89b7e86 |access-date=August 2, 2023 |website=HuffPost |language=en |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802005521/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-indictment-conspirators_n_64c9975de4b03ad2b89b7e86 |url-status=live }}

Later, the superseding indictment clarified that Co-conspirator Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were "private attorney[s]" and that Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}6 was a "private political consultant". It omitted Co-conspirator No.{{nbsp}}4 entirely. {{nbsp}}File:0803 Prettyman Courthouse Trump Arraignment.jpg agents patrol in front of the courthouse before the arraignment]]

In August 2023, Chutkan set trial for March 4, 2024.{{Cite news |last1=Rabinowitz |first1=Hannah |last2=Lybrand |first2=Holmes |date=2023-08-28 |title=Judge sets Trump DC federal election subversion trial for March 4, 2024 — one day before Super Tuesday |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-2020-election-08-28-23/h_21a9c649218fefeea98e84e2643e470d |access-date=2023-08-28 |work=CNN |language=en}} This was close to federal prosecutors' proposal of January 2, 2024, whereas Trump's team had suggested April 2026.{{Cite web |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |date=2023-08-17 |title=Trump proposes April 2026 trial in federal election subversion case |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-proposes-2026-trial-federal-election-case/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818143020/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-proposes-2026-trial-federal-election-case/index.html |archive-date=August 18, 2023 |access-date=2023-08-18 |website=CNN Politics |language=en}}

Originally, all pre-trial motions were due by October 9. On September 28, Trump's attorneys requested a 60-day extension.{{cite news |last=Legare |first=Robert |date=September 28, 2023 |title=Trump's legal team asks to delay deadlines in special counsel's election interference case |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-legal-team-asks-to-delay-deadlines-in-special-counsels-election-interference-case/ |access-date=October 5, 2023 |work=CBS News}}{{cite news |last=Faulders |first=Katherine |date=September 28, 2023 |title=Trump asks judge in federal election interference case for 2-month extension to file pretrial motions |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-asks-judge-federal-election-interference-case-2/story?id=103573558 |access-date=October 5, 2023 |work=ABC News}} On October 6, Chutkan extended the filing deadline for motions to dismiss and other dispositive motions (except motions in limine and motions to suppress) until October 23.{{cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Perry |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin |date=October 8, 2023 |title=Trump trials: Slow motions |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/08/trump-trials-tracker-motions-dc/ |access-date=October 9, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

On October 10, acknowledging that the screening of potential jurors would involve revealing jurors' identities to the legal teams, prosecutors recommended prohibiting attorneys from "friending" or "following" the social media accounts of potential jurors.{{Cite web |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |date=2023-10-10 |title=Special counsel to Trump: Don't 'friend' potential jurors |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/10/special-counsel-trump-jury-safeguards-00120739 |access-date=2023-10-10 |website=Politico |language=en}} On November 2, Chutkan ruled that jury selection would begin on February 9 (aligned with the prosecution's request of early February) and ordered that the parties not share any jury pool research with any other legal entity (such as Trump's presidential campaign) or publicly disclose the identities of prospective jurors.{{cite news |last=Lybrand |first=Holmes |date=November 2, 2023 |title=Judge Chutkan warns Trump's attorneys not to share juror information with his campaign |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/chutkan-trump-jury-information/index.html |access-date=November 2, 2023 |work=CNN}}{{cite news |last=Hsu |first=Spencer S. |date=November 2, 2023 |title=Jury selection in Trump's D.C. criminal trial set to start Feb. 9 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/02/trump-dc-trial-jury-selection-chutkan/ |access-date=November 2, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

However, Chutkan paused deadlines in the case after Trump asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7 to decide whether he is immune from prosecution.{{Cite news |last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Weiner |first2=Rachel |date=2024-02-02 |title=Trump D.C. trial drops off court's March calendar, clearing way for N.Y. case |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/02/01/trump-trial-calendar-jan-6-delay/ |access-date=2024-02-02 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}} On February 2, 2024, one week before jury selection would have begun, Chutkan issued an order acknowledging that the trial would have to be postponed. (Over the previous week, she had already scheduled other trials for March and April.) She said she would not set a new date for Trump's trial until the question of presidential immunity was resolved. On February 6, the appeals court ruled that Trump was not immune. Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court,{{Cite web |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=2024-02-12 |title=Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention in federal election subversion case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-seeks-supreme-court-intervention-election-interference-case-rcna137694 |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=NBC News |language=en}} which scheduled oral arguments for April 25 and did not rule until the end of the court's term on July 1.{{cite news |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=July 1, 2024 |title=Supreme Court provides win to Trump, ruling he has immunity for many acts in election interference indictment |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135 |access-date=July 1, 2024 |publisher=NBC News}}

At Trump's second arraignment on September 5, 2024, Judge Chutkan first addressed the immunity issue.{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Sneed |first5=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge says there are 2 questions to address today |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_78514f4b6bb86d891c81f7fe7398a659 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} She maintained that the Supreme Court had given her discretion to decide whether evidence regarding Mike Pence is admissible{{Cite web |last=Chowdhury |first=Maureen |date=2024-09-05 |title=Analysis: Trump's team is being "pretty dramatic" in their arguments in court — compared to their filings |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_68bf80dbd47fff35445e1dd09ad74e17 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} and that, even if she decides it is inadmissible, she is not required to toss out the entire indictment.{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Analysis: Trump's team is taking an aggressive swing on Pence's conduct to get whole case thrown out |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_62d5d09e79eb8f6bb6959b4017049b1d |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

She next addressed the timetable. The old deadlines for witnesses and evidence had "long since passed", she noted, because the case had been stayed while Trump appealed.{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Sneed |first5=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge is reviewing what she has done since Trump election interference case returned to her jurisdiction |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_a1d3964803782976f88ed4507e931ac2 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} She said that "we are hardly sprinting to the finish line" and insisted that "there needs to be some forward motion in this case."{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Sneed |first5=Tierney |date=September 5, 2024 |title=Trump attorney continues to fight for protracted schedule in case |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_10b15ff5722ab7ba0178a1aa58e745d0 |access-date=September 5, 2024 |website=CNN}} She said any remaining discovery should proceed promptly.{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Sneed |first5=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge says it makes sense to resolve the pending discovery motions sooner rather than later |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_62b594bb7c2234247387709152d0e0ce |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

Hours after the hearing ended, she set new deadlines for court filings, including:

• Prosecutors must file their initial brief on the immunity question by September 26 (which they did). They had asked for this extra time.{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Sneed |first5=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Prosecutors say they need 2 or 3 weeks to finish writing arguments |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_63e4d7c2d651fc32fa1dddeae981a561 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} Trump must file his reply by October 17{{Cite web |last=Murray |first=Ashley |date=2024-09-05 |title=Trump's Jan. 6 case to extend beyond Election Day under timeline laid out by judge • Maine Morning Star |url=https://mainemorningstar.com/2024/09/05/judge-in-trumps-jan-6-case-says-it-wont-be-delayed-by-upcoming-presidential-election/ |access-date=2024-10-21 |website=Maine Morning Star |language=en-US}} (later extended to November 7).{{Cite web |last1=Dobkin |first1=Rachel |last2=Jackson |first2=Jon |date=2024-10-03 |title=Judge Chutkan gives Donald Trump new deadline in Jack Smith case |url=https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutkan-gives-donald-trump-new-deadline-jack-smith-case-1963592 |access-date=2024-10-21 |website=Newsweek |language=en}}
• Prosecutors' response to the immunity question by October 29 (later extended to November 21). The deadline for Trump's reply was later extended to December 5.
• November 7: Trump's final brief on the legality of the special counsel's appointment.

No hearings were yet included in the schedule. Chutkan did not set a trial date,{{Cite web |last1=Polantz |first1=Katelyn |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Evidence in January 6 case against Trump could be released before election under new schedule |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/05/politics/january-6-case-evidence-release/index.html |access-date=2024-09-06 |website=CNN |language=en}} acknowledging that the case would return to the Supreme Court before going to trial. She said: "We all know that whatever my decision on immunity is going to be appealed."{{Cite web |last=Reid |first=Paula |date=2024-09-05 |title=This is the Trump team's legal strategy for today's hearing |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_15cb4f3c6582656d8cb59c62946a2596 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

Immediately following Trump's election in November 2024, it was reported that the Justice Department was considering how to wind down the case.{{Cite web |last1=Dilanian |first1=Ken |last2=Jarrett |first2=Laura |date=2024-11-06 |title=DOJ moving to wind down Trump criminal cases before he takes office |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/doj-moving-wind-trump-criminal-cases-takes-office-rcna178930 |access-date=2024-11-07 |website=NBC News |language=en}} On November 25, Smith filed a motion to drop all charges against Trump, citing the DOJ's policy of not prosecuting sitting Presidents,{{Cite web |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |last2=del Valle |first2=Lauren |last3=Scannell |first3=Kara |last4=Herb |first4=Jeremy |date=2024-11-06 |title=What happens to Trump's criminal and civil cases now that he's been reelected |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/what-happens-to-trump-criminal-cases/index.html |access-date=2024-11-06 |website=CNN |language=en}} and Chutkan approved the request the same day.

Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom.{{Cite web |first1=Jeremy |last1=Herb |first2=Hannah |last2=Rabinowitz |first3=Holmes |last3=Lybrand |first4=Katelyn |last4=Polantz |first5=Tierney |last5=Sneed |date=2024-09-05 |title='We are here regarding next steps in this case,' judge says as hearing begins |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_1e49b736e38fa2d5938cb1f059ee4111 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}

On August 4 and 5, the special counsel filed motions asking the court to restrict Trump from making public statements about the case and to impose a protective order on Trump and his attorneys to prevent them from revealing evidence (as they noted Trump has done in other cases). In particular, they cited social media posts on August 4 and 5 in which Trump threatened to retaliate against anyone who "comes after" him and called Pence "delusional". The Trump campaign characterized this as political speech that should be allowable.{{Cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Sullivan |first2=Kate |date=August 5, 2023 |title=Special counsel cites Truth Social post in arguing for quick court order on evidence sharing as Trump rails against 2020 election charges |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/trump-truth-social-smith-evidence-2020/index.html |access-date=August 5, 2023 |website=CNN Politics |language=en |archive-date=August 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230805064116/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/trump-truth-social-smith-evidence-2020/index.html |url-status=live }}{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/05/trump-protective-order/|last1=Stein|first1=Perry|last2=Hsu|first2=Spencer|date=August 5, 2023|title=Prosecutors cite Trump's social media posts as they seek limits on handling of evidence|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=August 7, 2023|archive-date=August 6, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230806130234/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/05/trump-protective-order/|url-status=live}} When Chutkan would not grant the Trump team's request for an extra three days to respond, Trump attacked her on social media, demanding that she be removed from the case and that the case be moved out of the District of Columbia.{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tanya-chutkan-judge-in-trump-dc-case-b2388652.html|title=Trump demands Judge Tanya Chutkan be removed from election case after ruling against him|last1=Biao|first1=Ariana|last2=Sheets|first2=Megan|date=August 6, 2023|work=The Independent|access-date=August 7, 2023|archive-date=August 7, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807045131/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tanya-chutkan-judge-in-trump-dc-case-b2388652.html|url-status=live}} On August 7, Trump's attorneys requested a less restrictive order that would "shield only genuinely sensitive materials from public view", to which prosecutors replied that Trump sought "to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom".{{cite news |title=Trump lawyers seek to narrow proposed limit on what he can say publicly in election case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-seeks-narrow-special-counsels-proposed-protective-order-election-rcna98628 |work=NBC News |date=August 7, 2023 |first1=Zoë |last1=Richards |first2=Ken |last2=Dilanian |access-date=August 8, 2023 |archive-date=August 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807233845/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-seeks-narrow-special-counsels-proposed-protective-order-election-rcna98628 |url-status=live }} Chutkan scheduled a hearing for August 11.{{Cite web |first1=Tierney |last1=Sneed |first2=Katelyn |last2=Polantz |date=August 8, 2023 |title=Judge schedules Friday hearing on protective order in election subversion case against Trump |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/08/politics/trump-protective-order-hearing/index.html |access-date=August 8, 2023 |website=WPSD Local 6 |language=en |archive-date=August 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230809015816/https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/08/politics/trump-protective-order-hearing/index.html |url-status=live }}

On August 8, Trump insisted he would continue to speak publicly about the case.{{Cite web |last1=Price |first1=Michelle L. |last2=Ramer |first2=Holly |date=August 9, 2023 |title=Trump Vows To Keep Talking About Criminal Cases Despite Prosecutors Pushing For Protective Order |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/election-2024-trump-protective-order_n_64d2e929e4b03c1d7391428f |access-date=August 9, 2023 |website=HuffPost |language=en |archive-date=August 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230809091043/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/election-2024-trump-protective-order_n_64d2e929e4b03c1d7391428f |url-status=live }} On August 10, Chutkan was spotted with the protection of U.S. Marshals, revealing an apparently increased level of security.{{Cite web |last1=Barnes |first1=Daniel |last2=Gregorian |first2=Dareh |date=August 10, 2023 |title=Security bolstered for judge overseeing Trump election case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/security-bolstered-judge-overseeing-trump-election-case-rcna99221 |access-date=August 10, 2023 |website=NBC News |language=en |archive-date=August 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230810162304/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/security-bolstered-judge-overseeing-trump-election-case-rcna99221 |url-status=live }} A Texas woman was charged the next week with leaving Chutkan a voicemail with racial and gender slurs in which she threatened: "Hey you stupid slave nigger{{nbsp}}... If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, bitch{{nbsp}}... You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it."{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |title=Texas Woman Charged With Threatening to Kill Judge in Trump Election Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/us/politics/woman-arrested-death-threat-judge-chutkan.html |work=The New York Times |date=August 16, 2023 |access-date=August 17, 2023 |archive-date=August 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817022101/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/us/politics/woman-arrested-death-threat-judge-chutkan.html |url-status=live }}{{cite web |last1=Lewis |first1=Kaitlin |title='We Are Coming to Kill You': Woman Charged in Threat to Judge Chutkan |url=https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-coming-kill-you-woman-charged-threat-judge-chutkan-1820391 |work=Newsweek |access-date=August 17, 2023 |date=August 16, 2023 |archive-date=August 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817005034/https://www.newsweek.com/we-are-coming-kill-you-woman-charged-threat-judge-chutkan-1820391 |url-status=live }}{{efn|The Texas woman's criminal trial began on October 30.{{cite magazine|last=O'Driscoll|first=Sean|date=October 30, 2023|title=Abigail Shry's Trial Begins Over Judge Chutkan Death Threats |magazine=Newsweek |url=https://www.newsweek.com/abigail-shry-donald-trump-judge-tanya-chutkan-threat-1839133|access-date=October 31, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Breuninger |first=Kevin |date=October 31, 2023 |title=Washington judge, Georgia DA both got violent threats on heels of Trump vow to come after foes, court documents allege |work=CNBC |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/31/trump-election-case-threats-followed-vow-to-go-after-foes-court-docs-show.html |access-date=October 31, 2023}}}} At the August 11 hearing, Chutkan issued a less broad protective order than what was sought by prosecutors, who wanted to lock down all evidence turned over in discovery. The protective order allowed Trump to access certain non-sensitive information. She admonished Trump's attorneys that inflammatory public remarks by the former president would cause her to take measures to expedite the trial and prevent potential witness tampering and jury pool tainting. She emphasized that Trump's status as a criminal defendant had priority over his free speech as a political candidate.{{Cite web |last1=Rabinowitz |first1=Hannah |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |date=August 11, 2023 |title=Judge Chutkan says Trump's right to free speech in January 6 case is 'not absolute' |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/11/politics/trump-protective-order-chutkan-hearing/index.html |access-date=August 11, 2023 |website=CNN Politics |language=en |archive-date=August 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230811143145/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/11/politics/trump-protective-order-chutkan-hearing/index.html |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Lowell |first1=Hugo |title=Inflammatory remarks could speed up 2020 election trial, judge warns Trump |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/11/trump-trial-date-sooner-warns-judge-tanya-chutkan |work=The Guardian |date=August 11, 2023 |access-date=August 11, 2023 |archive-date=August 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230811214517/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/11/trump-trial-date-sooner-warns-judge-tanya-chutkan |url-status=live }}{{cite web |first=Tanya S. |last=Chutkan |author-link=Tanya Chutkan |work=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |date=11 August 2023 |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23907641-protective-order-in-us-v-trump |title=Protective Order Governing Discovery and Authorizing Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony |via=DocumentCloud |access-date=August 11, 2023 |archive-date=August 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813112923/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23907641-protective-order-in-us-v-trump |url-status=live }}

Chutkan ruled Trump could review materials alone, but only if his attorneys ensured he did not have any device that could copy them. A prosecutor told the court that once the protective order was in place, the special counsel expected to provide the defense about 11.6 million pages or files of materials by the end of August.{{cite news |first1=Alexander |last1=Mallin |first2=Katherine |last2=Faulders |date=August 11, 2023 |title=Judge issues protective order against Trump, cautioning him against 'inflammatory statements' |work=ABC News |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hearing-arguments-proposed-protective-order-trumps-jan/story?id=102197791 |url-status=live |access-date=August 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813000756/https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hearing-arguments-proposed-protective-order-trumps-jan/story?id=102197791 |archive-date=August 13, 2023}} Court documents released on September 15 showed the special counsel previously asked Judge Chutkan in sealed briefs to impose a "narrowly tailored" gag order on Trump, asserting that since his indictment he "has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the court, prosecutors and prospective witnesses."{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |date=September 15, 2023 |title=Special Counsel Seeking Limited Gag Order on Trump in Election Case |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/trump-gag-order.html |access-date=September 19, 2023}} Smith filed another brief on September 29 regarding more recent derogatory remarks Trump had made about Brad Raffensperger, William Barr, and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, all of whom were identified as witnesses in the Trump indictment. Trump had on September 22 suggested that Milley should be executed for treason. The brief asserted, "No other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed. This defendant should not be, either."{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |date=September 29, 2023 |title=Trump's attack on Milley fuels special counsel's push for a gag order |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/trumps-attack-on-milley-fuels-special-counsels-push-for-a-gag-order-00119253 |access-date=2 November 2023 }}{{cite news |last1=Richards |first1=Zoë |date=September 29, 2023 |title=Prosecutors cite Trump's recent remarks about government officials in push for narrow gag order |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/prosecutors-cite-trump-remarks-push-narrow-gag-order-rcna118190 |access-date=January 28, 2024 }}

On October 16, following a hearing, Chutkan granted a limited gag order.{{cite news |last1=Reilly |first1=Ryan J. |last2=Barnes |first2=Daniel |date=October 16, 2023|title=Judge issues partial gag in Trump federal election interference case |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-hears-arguments-trump-gag-order-request-election-interference-ca-rcna119457 |access-date=October 16, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Faulders |first1=Katherine |last2=Mallin |first2=Alexander |last3=Romero |first3=Laura |date=October 16, 2023 |title=Judge grants limited gag order in Trump's federal election interference case |work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-arguments-proposed-trump-gag-order-jan/story?id=103963458|access-date=October 16, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Legare |first1=Robert |last2=MacFarlane |first2=Scott |last3=Quinn |first3=Melissa |date=October 16, 2023 |title=Federal judge imposes limited gag order on Trump in 2020 election interference case |work=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-arguments-2020-election-meddling-federal-case/|access-date=October 16, 2023}} The gag order prohibits all parties from making public statements targeting Jack Smith or his staff, the defense counsel or their staff, the judge or court personnel, and any potential witnesses or the substance of witness testimony with smears, intimidation, or harassment.{{cite news|last=Polantz|first=Katelyn|date=October 17, 2023|title=Trump's statements pose 'grave threats' to court proceedings, Judge Chutkan says in written gag order|work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/17/politics/trump-gag-order-written-tanya-chutkan/index.html|access-date=October 17, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Breuninger |first=Kevin |date=October 17, 2023|title=Trump statements pose 'grave threats' that justify gag order, judge says in DC election case |work=CNBC |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/17/trump-election-trial-gag-order-judge-says-his-statements-pose-threat.html|access-date=October 17, 2023}}{{cite news|last1=Lybrand|first1=Holmes|last2=Rabinowitz|first2=Hannah|date=October 17, 2023|title=Takeaways from the testy hearing over the Trump gag order and what it means|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/gag-order-trump-chutkan-takeaways/index.html|access-date=October 17, 2023}} The gag order does not prohibit Trump from making statements criticizing the Biden administration, the Justice Department, the District of Columbia, other presidential candidates and their political platforms, and the conduct of the trial as being unfair or politically motivated. Trump's attorneys filed an appeal of the gag order the next day that claimed that the order violated the Freedom of Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment,{{cite news|last=Dolan|first=Laura|date=October 17, 2023|title=Trump appeals gag order in federal 2020 election subversion case|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/17/politics/trump-civil-fraud-trial-federal-gag-order/index.html|access-date=October 17, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Breuninger|first=Kevin|date=October 17, 2023|title=Trump appeals gag order in DC election case|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/17/trump-appeals-gag-order-in-dc-election-case.html|access-date=October 17, 2023}} and Chutkan issued a stay of the order on October 20.{{cite news|last1=Cole|first1=Devan|last2=Blackburn|first2=Piper Hudspeth|date=October 20, 2023|title=Judge Chutkan temporarily freezes Trump gag order in 2020 election subversion case|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/politics/trump-gag-order-tanya-chutkan-election-subversion-case/index.html|access-date=October 26, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Faulders|first=Katherine|date=October 20, 2023|title=Judge temporarily halts Trump's limited gag order in federal election interference case|publisher=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-temporarily-halts-trumps-limited-gag-order-federal/story?id=104186855|access-date=October 26, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Beitsch|first=Rebecca|date=October 24, 2023|title=Trump appeal of gag order likely to center on speech that 'targets'|work=The Hill|publisher=Nexstar Media Group|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4271196-trump-appeal-of-gag-order-likely-to-center-on-speech-that-targets/|access-date=October 26, 2023}} On October 25, the prosecution filed a reply to the stay order that urged that the gag order be reinstated.{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |date=October 25, 2023 |title=Special counsel urges judge to reimpose Trump's federal gag order |website=Politico |publisher=Axel Springer SE |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/special-counsel-trump-federal-gag-order-00123676|access-date=October 26, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Legare|first=Robert|date=October 26, 2023|title=Special counsel urges judge to reinstate limited gag order against Trump|publisher=CBS News|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-special-counsel-urges-judge-to-reinstate/|access-date=October 26, 2023}} On the same day, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief against the gag order that argued that it violated the 1st Amendment.{{cite news|last=Breuninger|first=Kevin|date=October 25, 2023|title=ACLU says Trump gag order in DC election interference case violates First Amendment|publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/25/trump-election-case-gag-order-violates-constitution-aclu-says.html|access-date=November 2, 2023}}

Chutkan granted the prosecution's request on October 29, stating in her ruling that "First Amendment rights of participants in criminal proceedings ... yield, when necessary, to the orderly administration of justice{{snd}}a principle reflected in Supreme Court precedent", and citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991), that "contrary to Defendant's argument, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs also to the government and the public."{{cite news|last1=Cole|first1=Devan|last2=Rabinowitz|first2=Hannah|date=October 30, 2023|title=Judge reinstates gag order on Trump in federal election subversion case|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/politics/trump-gag-order-reinstated/index.html|access-date=October 30, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Breuninger|first=Kevin|date=October 30, 2023|title=Trump gag order reinstated in Jack Smith federal election case |publisher=CNBC|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/30/trump-gag-order-reinstated-in-jack-smith-federal-election-case.html|access-date=October 30, 2023}}{{ussc|name=Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada|volume=501|page=1030|pin=1075|year=1991}}

On November 2, Trump's attorneys appealed Chutkan's reinstatement of the gag order, asking the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the gag order during the appeal.{{cite news|last=Cole|first=Devan|date=November 2, 2023|title=Trump asks appeals court to pause gag order in federal election subversion case|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/politics/trump-asks-appeals-court-to-pause-gag-order-in-federal-election-subversion-case/index.html|access-date=November 2, 2023}}{{cite news|last=Richer|first=Alanna Durkin|date=November 2, 2023|title=Trump asks appeals court to lift gag order imposed on him in 2020 election interference case|work=Associated Press News|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-juror-protections-capitol-riot-jack-smith-778637363d701edae6bdb4458f32f84a|access-date=November 2, 2023}} The next day, the court granted the pause and scheduled a hearing.{{Cite news |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |last2=Polantz |first2=Katelyn |date=November 3, 2023 |title=Appeals court freezes gag order against Trump in federal election subversion case, will hear oral arguments this month |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/chutkan-trump-gag-order-freeze/index.html |access-date=November 3, 2023 |publisher=CNN |language=en}} On November 14, the prosecution's filing urged that the gag order be upheld.{{cite news|last=Cole|first=Devan|date=November 14, 2023|title=Federal prosecutors want Trump gag order upheld, pointing to attacks on special counsel's family|publisher=CNN|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/trump-gag-order-special-counsel-family/index.html|access-date=November 14, 2023}} At the November 20 hearing, a three-judge panel (with Brad Garcia, Patricia Millett, and Cornelia Pillard presiding) suggested that it might limit the scope of the gag order. It noted Supreme Court precedent suggesting that, in balancing the rights to freedom of speech and a fair trial, protecting the integrity of criminal procedure outweighs free speech rights.{{cite news |last1=Breuninger |first1=Kevin |last2=Mangan |first2=Dan |date=November 20, 2023 |title=Trump gag order challenge sharply questioned by appeals court |work=CNBC |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/trump-jack-smith-argue-gag-order-in-dc-election-case-appeal.html |access-date=November 20, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Legare |first1=Robert |last2=Kaufman |first2=Katrina |last3=Ali |first3=Musa |date=November 20, 2023 |title=Appeals court grapples with Trump gag order in special counsel's election interference case |work=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-election-interference-case-appeals-court/|access-date=November 20, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Savage |first2=Charlie |date=November 20, 2023|title=Court Signals It Could Keep but Narrow Trump Election Case Gag Order |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/us/politics/trump-gag-order-election-court-case.html |access-date=November 20, 2023}} On November 23, the prosecution's filing urged reinstatement of the gag order, citing a document that compiled hundreds of voicemails containing threats and harassment of presiding New York State Unified Court System Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization;{{cite magazine |last=Palmer |first=Ewan |date=November 24, 2023 |title=Donald Trump Stung by Court Filing on Thanksgiving |magazine=Newsweek |url=https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-gag-order-doj-thanksgiving-election-trial-1846575 |access-date=November 27, 2023}} the next day, the defense replied, claiming that the evidence the prosecution cited was irrelevant.{{cite magazine |last=Palmer |first=Ewan |date=November 25, 2023 |title=Donald Trump's Latest Legal Filing 'Tired and Laughable'—Attorney |magazine=Newsweek |url=https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-gag-order-trial-filings-new-york-election-1846878 |access-date=November 27, 2023}}

On December 8, the three-judge panel on the appeals court mostly upheld the gag order. The court ruled that Trump cannot speak about prosecutors, court staff or their families. However, Trump may speak about witnesses as long as he doesn't speak specifically about their participation in the court case. He's also free to speak about special counsel Jack Smith, President Joe Biden, and the Justice Department, and he's allowed to say that the charges are "politically motivated".{{Cite web |last3=Reid |first1=Katelyn |last1=Polantz |first2=Holmes |last2=Lybrand |first3=Paula |date=2023-12-08 |title=Appeals court maintains most of Trump gag order in federal election subversion case |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/politics/federal-appeals-courts/index.html |access-date=2023-12-09 |website=CNN |language=en}} On December 18, Trump asked the court to reconsider its decision;{{Cite web |last=Cole |first=Devan |date=2023-12-18 |title=Trump asks federal appeals court to reconsider its decision largely upholding gag order |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/politics/trump-appeals-court-en-banc-gag-order/index.html |access-date=2023-12-19 |website=CNN Politics |language=en}} on January 23, the full 11-member court said it would not.{{Cite web |last=Cheney |first=Kyle |date=2024-01-23 |title=Appeals court shoots down Trump's bid to sideline his DC gag order |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/23/appeals-court-trumps-gag-order-00137227 |access-date=2024-01-24 |website=Politico |language=en}} (Trump may still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, as previously indicated.)

On January 7, 2024, Chutkan's home was swatted (i.e., someone called in a false report of a violent crime to prompt a police response).{{Cite web |last=Mitchell |first=Taiyler S. |date=2024-01-09 |title=Judge In Trump's Election Interference Case Reportedly Targeted With 'Swatting' Call |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-judge-tanya-chutkan-trump-case-swatting_n_659c69cfe4b0f9f6621dec83 |access-date=2024-01-09 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

On September 11, 2023, Trump asked Chutkan to recuse herself accusing her of "prejudging the facts pertinent to the case and his culpability".{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2023-09-11 |title=Trump asks Judge Tanya Chutkan to recuse herself from federal 2020 election subversion case |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/tanya-chutkan-trump-recusal-request/index.html |access-date=2023-09-12 |website=CNN |language=en}} On September 17, he repeated the request.{{Cite web |last=Vlachou |first=Marita |date=2023-09-18 |title=Trump Once Again Calls On Judge Chutkan To Recuse Herself From His Jan. 6 Case |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-tanya-chutkan-jan-6-case_n_65081117e4b072c86a4ff4bf |access-date=2023-09-18 |website=HuffPost |language=en}} Chutkan denied the request ten days later.{{cite news |title=Judge Tanya Chutkan rejects Trump's demand that she recuse herself from federal 2020 election subversion case |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/27/politics/tanya-chutkan-donald-trump-recusal-motion/index.html |work=CNN |access-date=2 November 2023 |date=September 27, 2023 |first1=Hannah |last1=Rabinowitz |first2=Holmes |last2=Lybrand}}

Also on October 5, a consortium of media organizations filed a request with Chutkan to allow live broadcasting of the trial's proceedings.{{cite news |last=Cole |first=Devan |date=October 5, 2023 |title=Media outlets ask judge for permission to broadcast Trump's federal election subversion trial next year |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/trump-federal-election-subversion-case-cameras-courtroom/index.html |access-date=November 14, 2023}}

In an October 10 court filing, prosecutors said that Trump and his legal team had "repeatedly and publicly announced" that they would employ an "advice of counsel" defense, i.e., shifting blame to certain lawyers for advising Trump wrongly. Prosecutors asked Chutkan to order Trump to disclose by December 18 whether he intended to use this defense. This defense would require Trump to reveal communications and evidence related to his current and former attorneys, and he would thereby forfeit his assertions of attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors noted in the motion that at least 25 witnesses had asserted attorney-client privilege during the course of their investigation.{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |title=Prosecutors Ask if Trump Will Blame His Lawyers as Defense in Election Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/us/politics/prosecutors-trump-blame-lawyers.html |work=The New York Times |date=October 10, 2023 |access-date=2 November 2023 }}

On October 11, Trump's attorneys filed a motion for discovery based on claims made by U.S. representative Barry Loudermilk that the House January 6 Committee did not turn over all of its evidence while the committee was under investigation by the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee.{{Cite web |last1=Shabad |first1=Rebecca |last2=Talbot |first2=Haley |last3=Nobles |first3=Ryan |date=2023-03-09 |title=Republicans launch an investigation into the Jan. 6 committee |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-launch-investigation-jan-6-committee-examined-riot-rcna74017 |access-date=2023-08-26 |website=NBC News |language=en}} The motion requested subpoenas be issued to Bennie Thompson (who chaired the January 6 House committee), Loudermilk, the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Archivist of the United States, and White House and Department of Homeland Security attorneys.{{Cite web |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |date=2023-10-11 |title=Trump asks judge to OK subpoenas for Jan. 6 committee documents |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4250891-trump-asks-judge-to-ok-subpoenas-for-jan-6-committee-documents/ |access-date=2023-10-12 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}

On October 23, Trump's attorneys filed three motions to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Speech Clause, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (with the former being cited due to Trump's acquittal in his second impeachment trial), that the indictment fails to state an offense, and that the indictment is a selective prosecution, as well as a motion to strike the allegations related to the January 6 Capitol attack as prejudicial and inflammatory.{{cite news |last1=MacFarlane |first1=Scott |last2=Quinn|first2=Melissa |date=October 24, 2023 |title=Trump lawyers mount new challenges to federal 2020 elections case |work=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-2020-elections-case-lawyers-new-challenges/|access-date=October 26, 2023}}{{cite news|last1=Hsu|first1=Spencer S. |last2=Stein |first2=Perry |date=October 24, 2023|title=Trump files new challenges to federal election obstruction case in D.C. |newspaper=The Washington Post| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/24/donald-trump-motion-dismiss-double-jeopardy/ |access-date=October 26, 2023}} On November 3, the prosecution filed a reply to the October 5 media consortium request urging that Chutkan reject it in accordance with Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.{{cite news |last=Suter |first=Tara |date=November 4, 2023 |title=Jack Smith pushes court to disallow cameras in Trump election interference trial |work=The Hill |publisher=Nexstar Media Group |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4293348-smith-pushes-court-disallow-cameras-trump-election-interference-trial/ |access-date=November 14, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Jackman |first2=Tom |date=November 4, 2023 |title=Trump and media want a televised trial in D.C. The Justice Dept. doesn't. |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/04/trump-trial-cameras-court-televise/|access-date=November 14, 2023}}Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule {{frcrp|53}} On November 6, the prosecution filed a reply to the October 23 motions to dismiss arguing that they were without merit.{{cite news |last1=Legare |first1=Robert |last2=MacFarlane |first2=Scott |date=November 6, 2023|title=Special counsel says Trump's attempts to dismiss federal election case 'are meritless' |work=CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-counsel-trump-motion-to-dismiss-federal-election-case-meritless/|access-date=November 14, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |date=November 6, 2023 |title=Special counsel urges judge in federal election interference case to reject Trump's dismissal attempts |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/06/politics/special-counsel-jack-smith-trump-dismiss-2020-election-case/index.html |access-date=November 14, 2023}} On November 10, Trump's attorneys filed a reply in support of the October 5 media consortium request,{{cite news |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |date=November 11, 2023 |title='Travesty in darkness': Trump backs drive to televise his D.C. election subversion trial |website=Politico |publisher=Axel Springer SE |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/11/travesty-in-darkness-trump-backs-drive-to-televise-his-d-c-election-subversion-trial-00126704 |access-date=November 14, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Polantz |first=Katelyn |date=November 12, 2023 |title=Trump's legal team asks for federal election subversion trial to be televised |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/11/politics/trump-asks-dc-trial-televised/index.html|access-date=November 14, 2023}} to which the prosecution replied in opposition on November 13.{{cite news |last=Polantz |first=Katelyn |date=November 13, 2023|title=Special counsel says Trump wants Jan. 6 trial to be a 'media event' as it argues against live court TV |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics/trump-tv-jan-6/index.html|access-date=November 14, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=November 13, 2023 |title=Federal Prosecutors Object to Trump Request for Broadcast of Election Trial |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/trump-trial-broadcast-request.html |access-date=November 14, 2023}} On November 17, Chutkan ruled that the defense had failed to demonstrate that the language in the indictment was prejudicial or inflammatory in rejection of the October 23 motion to strike.{{cite news |last=Mangan |first=Dan |date=November 17, 2023|title=Judge denies Trump bid to cut Jan. 6 riot language from D.C. election indictment |work=CNBC |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/17/-trump-loses-bid-to-cut-jan-6-reference-in-election-case.html |access-date=November 20, 2023 }}{{cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Judge Rejects Trump Motion to Strike Jan. 6 Mentions From Federal Election Case |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/trump-jan-6-federal-election-case.html |access-date=November 20, 2023}} On November 27, Chutkan rejected the October 11 motion for discovery filed by Trump's attorneys.{{cite news |last=Mangan |first=Dan |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Trump loses bid for Jan. 6 subpoenas in election case |work=CNBC |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/27/trump-loses-bid-for-jan-6-subpoenas-in-election-case.html |access-date=November 27, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Lybrand |first=Holmes |date=November 27, 2023 |title=Judge rejects Trump's House January 6 committee subpoena request, calling it a 'fishing expedition' |work=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/27/politics/trump-subpoena-january-6-denial/index.html |access-date=November 28, 2023}}

On November 28, Trump's attorneys submitted a motion to compel discovery in two separate filings with 59 separate requests for evidence from the prosecution related to vote fraud in the election, actual or attempted foreign interference with election infrastructure during the election, political bias in U.S. Intelligence Community assessments of foreign interference, the existence of any potential undercover government operatives or informants at the January 6 Capitol attack, and communications or coordination between the Justice Department with the Biden administration or Biden family (including Hunter Biden).{{cite news |last=Tucker |first=Eric |date=November 28, 2023|title=In new challenge to indictment, Trump's lawyers argue he had good basis to question election results |work=Associated Press |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-special-counsel-justice-department-b08e140f308c445ba735d20d4a3c24b7 |access-date=November 29, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Reilly |first=Ryan J. |date=November 28, 2023|title=Trump wants to use Jan. 6 rioter cases to fight the special counsel's case against him |work=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/donald-trump-jan-6-rioter-cases-special-counsel-charges-rcna126964|access-date=November 29, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Weiner |first2=Rachel |date=November 28, 2023|title=In D.C. 2020 election case, Trump demands information on U.S. government |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/28/trump-seeks-doj-biden-communications-jan-6/ |access-date=November 29, 2023}}{{cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=November 28, 2023 |title=Trump Seeks to Use Trial to Challenge Findings That 2020 Election Was Fair |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/us/politics/trump-trial-2020-election.html |access-date=November 29, 2023}}

On December 27, the special counsel asked the court to prohibit Trump from presenting "irrelevant disinformation", such as Trump's accusations that the mayor of Washington, D.C., the National Guard, and the Capitol Police failed to prevent the attack. Smith argued: "A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank's security guard for failing to stop him."{{Cite web |last=Lavender |first=Paige |date=2023-12-27 |title=Jack Smith Aims To Exclude 'Baseless' Trump Claims From Jan. 6 Trial |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jack-smith-donald-trump_n_658c3f6ce4b014ec45a2f3aa |access-date=2023-12-28 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

On October 16, 2024, the special counsel argued in a court filing that the case should not be dismissed. Trump had argued that it should be dismissed. The Supreme Court had ruled earlier that year that charges in January 6 cases for obstruction can be brought for presenting fake documents in the Electoral College certification proceeding (as Trump had indeed been charged), though not for rioting.{{Cite web |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |date=2024-10-16 |title=Special counsel says obstruction charge against Donald Trump in January 6 case should stand |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/16/politics/special-counsel-trump-january-6-response/index.html |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=CNN |language=en}}

{{Main|Trump v. United States (2024)}}

On October 5, 2023, Trump's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, cited presidential immunity under Nixon v. Fitzgerald.{{cite news |last1=Gibson |first1=Ginger |last2=Reilly |first2=Ryan J. |last3=Barnes |first3=Daniel |date=October 5, 2023 |title=Efforts to overturn the 2020 election were part of Trump's 'official duties,' his lawyers argue |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-argues-presidential-immunity-shields-2020-election-interference-rcna119070 |access-date=October 9, 2023 |work=NBC News}}{{cite news |last1=Gurman |first1=Sadie |last2=Barber |first2=C. Ryan |date=October 5, 2023 |title=Trump Seeks to Have Federal Election-Interference Case Dismissed |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-asks-to-put-off-mar-a-lago-documents-trial-until-after-election-b0243ffa |access-date=October 5, 2023 |work=The Wall Street Journal |publisher=News Corp}}{{ussc|name=Nixon v. Fitzgerald|volume=457|page=731|year=1982}}

On December 1, 2023, Chutkan rejected the October 5 motion to dismiss under presidential immunity and the October 23 motion to dismiss under the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Due Process Clause.{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Daniel |last2=Richards |first2=Zoë |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge denies two of Trump's motions to dismiss his federal election interference case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720 |access-date=December 3, 2023 |publisher=NBC News}}{{cite news |last=Legare |first=Robert |date=December 1, 2023 |title=Judge rejects Trump's motion to dismiss 2020 federal election interference case |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rejects-trump-motion-to-dismiss-2020-federal-election-interference-case/ |access-date=December 3, 2023 |publisher=CBS News}}

On December 7, 2023, Trump filed notice that he planned to appeal Chutkan's ruling.{{Cite news |date=December 7, 2023 |title=Trump appeals Jan. 6 immunity ruling, launching process that may delay trial |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/07/trump-appeal-trial-immunity/ |access-date=December 11, 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post}}

On December 13, 2023, Chutkan paused all deadlines in the case, including the upcoming trial itself, so the immunity dispute could be resolved first. The gag order remained in effect.{{Cite web |last1=Tucker |first1=Eric |last2=Richer |first2=Alanna Durkin |date=2023-12-13 |title=Trump Election Case Court Deadlines Paused As He Pursues Presidential Immunity Claims |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-election-case_n_657a19cde4b0887fe1dde604 |access-date=2023-12-13 |website=HuffPost |language=en}} After Chutkan stayed the case, prosecutors provided public notice that they would file discovery material, although they no longer had an immediate deadline to do so.{{Cite web |last1=Reilly |first1=Ryan J. |last2=Lebowitz |first2=Megan |date=2024-01-06 |title=Jack Smith responds to Trump legal team arguing for special counsel to be held in contempt |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jack-smith-responds-trump-legal-team-arguing-special-counsel-held-cont-rcna132607 |access-date=2024-01-06 |website=NBC News |language=en}}

On January 4, 2024, Trump's team asked Chutkan to reject these filings and hold prosecutors in contempt.{{Cite web |last=Lybrand |first=Holmes |date=2024-01-04 |title=Trump wants judge in January 6 case to hold special counsel Jack Smith in contempt |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/politics/trump-special-counsel-contempt/index.html |access-date=2024-01-04 |website=CNN |language=en}} Prosecutors replied the next day saying that Trump hadn't been burdened by "the mere receipt" of documents ahead of deadline, especially as he had no deadline to reply to it.

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in the immunity dispute. Trump attended the hearing in person.{{Cite news |last=Barrett |first=Devlin |date=January 9, 2024 |title=Stone-faced Trump listens to judges weigh his fate |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/09/trump-immunity-case-court-arguments-jan-6/#link-FT7THDK5MBAHTBIOMDBASRETIM |access-date=January 9, 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post}} In response to a hypothetical question posed by Judge Pan about whether a U.S. president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, Sauer argued that unless the president were subsequently impeached and convicted for said unlawful order, the president could not be criminally prosecuted.{{Cite web |last1=Breuninger |first1=Kevin |last2=Mangan |first2=Dan |date=January 9, 2024 |title=Trump Hearing Live Updates: Lawyer for ex-president argues immunity for official acts is absolute |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/09/trump-smith-face-off-in-court-on-election-case-immunity-claim.html |access-date=2024-01-09 |website=CNBC |language=en}}

On February 6, 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority ... and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump ... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."{{cite news |last1=Faulders |first1=Katherine |last2=Mallin |first2=Alexander |last3=Charalambous |first3=Peter |date=February 6, 2024 |title=Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/appeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-federal-election/story?id=106380940 |access-date=February 6, 2024 |publisher=ABC News}}{{cite news |last1=Cole |first1=Devan |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Polantz |first4=Katelyn |last5=Cohen |first5=Marshall |date=February 6, 2024 |title=Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/politics/trump-immunity-court-of-appeals/index.html |access-date=February 6, 2024 |publisher=CNN}} The panel held further that former Presidents have no immunity for "allegedly violat[ing] generally applicable criminal laws" while in office, and specifically "to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power{{snd}}the recognition and implementation of election results".

On February 12, 2024, Trump's attorneys filed a motion requesting that the Supreme Court block the appeals court ruling.

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari for Trump's appeal.{{cite news |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=February 28, 2024 |title=Supreme Court to decide Trump's immunity claim in election interference case |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-decide-trumps-immunity-claim-election-interference-case-rcna139026 |access-date=February 28, 2024 |publisher=NBC News}}{{cite news |last=Breuninger |first=Kevin |date=March 6, 2024 |title=Supreme Court will hear Trump presidential immunity argument April 25 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/06/supreme-court-will-hear-trump-presidential-immunity-argument-april-25.html |access-date=March 6, 2024 |publisher=CNBC}} The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 25.{{cite news |last1=Baio |first1=Ariana |date=April 25, 2024 |title=The Nixon rulings at the centre of Trump's Supreme Court immunity case |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supreme-court-absolute-immunity-nixon-b2534641.html |work=The Independent |access-date=13 September 2024 }}{{cite news |last1=Bomboy |first1=Scott |date=April 22, 2024 |title=Update: The final briefs before the Trump immunity case arguments |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/update-the-final-briefs-before-the-trump-immunity-case-arguments |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=13 September 2024 }}

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that, regarding a president's behavior during their presidency, former presidents have "some immunity from criminal prosecution" for their "official acts" but have "no immunity" for their "unofficial acts".

The Supreme Court decision directed Chutkan to apply the former's ruling to determine what parts of the indictment may proceed,{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=2024-07-01 |title=Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-jan-6.html |access-date=2024-07-03 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} specifically to determine whether each act was official or private conduct; whether or not the official acts are part of core constitutional duties; and whether prosecuting the non-core official acts would have any "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive." Under Supreme Court rules, the prosecutors were given one month to ask the justices to reconsider their ruling, with the case returning to Chutkan on August 2, 2024.{{Cite news |date=2024-07-03 |title=What is an 'official' act, and how will a judge interpret Trump's immunity? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/ |access-date=2024-07-04 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Rabinowitz |first=Hannah |date=2024-08-02 |title=Judge Chutkan could jumpstart Trump election interference case now that it's back in her court |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/02/politics/chutkan-trump-election-interference-case/index.html |access-date=2024-08-02 |website=CNN |language=en}} Smith could have petitioned to shorten this period, but chose not to.{{Cite web |last=Dilanian |first=Ken |date=2024-07-02 |title=Trump has some immunity in D.C. election interference case, Supreme Court rules: Highlights |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539 |access-date=2024-08-05 |website=NBC News |language=en}}

After the case was returned to Chutkan following resolution of his immunity argument, she asked all parties to propose schedules for further pretrial proceedings by August 9, 2024,{{cite web |date=August 3, 2024 |title=Judge sets Trump 2020 election subversion case pretrial meeting for Aug 16 |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-sets-trump-2020-election-subversion-case-pretrial-meeting-aug-16-2024-08-03/ |first1=Ismail |last1=Shakil |first2=Makini |last2=Brice |access-date=August 3, 2024 |website=Reuters}} and she set an August 16 hearing to determine how to proceed with the case.{{cite web |last=Rabinowitz |first=Hannah |date=August 3, 2024 |title=Hearing on how to proceed with election interference case against Trump set for August 16 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/03/politics/election-interference-case-hearing/index.html |access-date=August 3, 2024 |website=CNN}} She also denied an October motion by Trump to dismiss the case on statutory grounds.{{cite web |last=Faulders |first=Katherine |date=August 3, 2024 |title=Judge sets Aug. 16 hearing in Trump's federal election interference case |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-sets-aug-16-hearing-trumps-federal-election/story?id=112537104 |access-date=August 3, 2024 |website=ABC News}} The special counsel requested a deadline extension to August 30; Trump did not object.{{Cite web |last=Visser |first=Nick |date=2024-08-09 |title=Jack Smith Asks For More Time To Mull How Trump's Jan. 6 Case Should Move Forward |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jack-smith-donald-trump-jan-6_n_66b56c5ee4b05d0bc2813af9 |access-date=2024-08-09 |website=HuffPost |language=en}} (Both parties went on to meet this deadline.){{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge drills down on key disagreement |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_bf35080226835c6066c2fce849294149 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} The hearing for which the report was needed was postponed to September 5.{{Cite web |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |last2=Polantz |first2=Katelyn |last3=Reid |first3=Paula |last4=Sneed |first4=Tierney |date=2024-08-08 |title=First hearing in Trump DC election case after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling is delayed until September |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics/special-counsel-trump-election-case-delay/index.html |access-date=2024-08-09 |website=CNN |language=en}}

The special counsel filed a superseding indictment on August 27, 2024. It omitted mention of some of Trump's alleged activities, including his attempts to involve the Justice Department in his claims of election fraud,{{efn|As such, references to Jeffrey Clark as co-conspirator no. 4 were removed from the indictment.}} as such "official acts" can no longer be used as evidence following the Supreme Court's decision on immunity.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}} Nonetheless, the four original charges were not dropped. The superseding indictment had been presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case.{{cite news |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |date=August 27, 2024 |title=Special counsel files reworked indictment against Donald Trump in January 6 case |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/27/politics/trump-superseding-indictment-january-6/index.html |access-date=August 27, 2024 |work=CNN}}

On September 5, Judge Chutkan held the first hearing in the case since the immunity decision. The purpose of the hearing was to decide whether the trial can proceed, to begin to set a trial schedule, and to decide whether prosecutors can call Pence and others as witnesses.{{Cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Polantz |first2=Katelyn |date=2024-09-05 |title=Judge holds hearing in election interference case against Donald Trump |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hearing-jan-6-election-09-05-24#h_4d6508b9ec33f7c0cd31216286d0ad92 |access-date=2024-09-05 |website=CNN |language=en}} She set a September 26 deadline for the prosecution to file its initial brief that would include previously unseen evidence such as grand jury transcripts; Trump attorneys had sought to delay the filing until after the November election. Although filings typically cannot be longer than 45 pages, Chutkan gave Smith permission to file up to 180 pages.{{Cite web |last1=Faulders |first1=Katherine |last2=Charalambous |first2=Peter |date=September 24, 2024 |title=Special counsel's filing could contain new evidence in Jan. 6 case, following judge's ruling |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsels-filing-new-evidence-jan-6-case/story?id=114001145 |access-date=2024-09-25 |website=ABC News |language=en}} He filed a 165-page brief under seal.{{Cite web |last1=Mallin |first1=Alexander |last2=Faulders |first2=Katherine |date=September 26, 2024 |title=Special counsel files sealed court brief supporting his Jan. 6 case against Trump |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-files-sealed-court-brief-supporting-jan/story?id=113213942 |access-date=September 27, 2024 |website=ABC News |language=en}} Trump asked for more redactions.{{Cite web |last=Buchman |first=Brandi |date=2024-10-01 |title=Before Election Day, Trump Says He Wants Even More Redactions in Jan. 6 Case |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-judge-more-redactions-jan-6-brief-case_n_66fc369be4b0453dc1ee4ce8 |access-date=2024-10-01 |website=HuffPost |language=en}} On October 2, Chutkan publicly released the brief.{{Cite web |last1=Polantz |first1=Katelyn |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |last3=Fritze |first3=John |last4=Rabinowitz |first4=Hannah |last5=Cole |first5=Devan |last6=Lybrand |first6=Holmes |last7=Cohen |first7=Marshall |date=2024-10-02 |title=Special counsel Jack Smith provides fullest picture yet of his 2020 election case against Trump in new filing |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing/index.html |access-date=2024-10-02 |website=CNN |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=October 2, 2024 |title=Government's motion for immunity declarations |url=https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/10/gov.uscourts.dcd_.258148.252.0.pdf |access-date=January 7, 2025}} She also planned to release the prosecution's redacted exhibits related to the brief, but on October 10, she gave Trump one week to appeal the release.{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2024-10-10 |title=Judge gives Trump one week to appeal her ruling releasing evidence in special counsel's Jan. 6 probe |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/10/politics/trump-special-counsel-january-6-election-subversion-case/index.html |access-date=2024-10-10 |website=CNN |language=en}} He did not appeal, and the redacted exhibits were released.{{Cite web |last=Buchman |first=Brandi |date=2024-10-18 |title=More Jan. 6 Evidence That Trump Tried To Keep Hidden Is Out |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-jan-6-evidence-that-trump-tried-to-keep-hidden-is-out_n_671125ece4b0e33eefb211b9 |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

The first section of Smith's brief summarizes evidence and describes the prosecutors' argument; the second discusses what constitutes an "official" act; the third applies the principles to Trump's case; the fourth urges Chutkan to rule that Trump does not have immunity for these actions and that he be brought to trial.

Names of 71 people were redacted, identified only as P1 through P71. Using other identifying information, The New York Times identified P1 as Steve Bannon; P4 as Jason Miller; P9 as Eric Herschmann; P21 as Mark Meadows; P45 as Dan Scavino; and P52 as Bill Barr.{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Savage |first2=Charlie |title=Filing in Trump Election Case Fleshes Out Roles of a Sprawling Cast |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/03/us/politics/trump-jan-6-jack-smith-brief.html |work=The New York Times |date=October 3, 2024}}

Following Trump's election in November 2024, Smith filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, citing the DOJ's policy of not prosecuting sitting Presidents. Smith reportedly plans to step down before Trump takes office.{{Cite web |last=Hearon |first=Liza |date=2024-11-13 |title=Special Counsel Jack Smith To Resign Before Trump Takes Office: Reports |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jack-smith-to-resign-before-trump-takes-office_n_67349b2be4b0c06fd0e40fde |access-date=2024-11-13 |website=HuffPost |language=en}} On November 25, 2024, Judge Chutkan approved the request and dismissed the charges.

The release of Smith's special counsel report was affected by parallel proceedings in the classified documents federal prosecution. The judge in that case, Aileen Cannon, stayed the release of the entire report covering both prosecutions until three days after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals would rule on the matter. That court ruled denied the motion opposing the report's release on January 9, 2025.{{Cite web |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |date=2025-01-09 |title=Appeals court denies Trump's bid to block release of Smith Jan. 6 report |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/5078198-appeals-court-denies-trump-bid-to-block-release-of-smith-jan-6-report/ |access-date=2025-01-09 |website=The Hill}} The following day, Smith asked both Cannon and the appeals court to remove the three-day waiting period, while the defendants asked Cannon to extend it.{{Cite web |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |date=2025-01-10 |title=Trump Mar-a-Lago co-defendants ask Cannon to further block Smith report |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5080370-mar-a-lago-case-cannon-block-report/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Hill}} Cannon responded by requesting the government to address by the morning of January 12 whether anything in the election obstruction volume of the report has any relationship to the defendants in the ongoing classified documents prosecution.{{Cite web |last1=Faulders |first1=Katherine |last2=Mallin |first2=Alexander |last3=Charalambous |first3=Peter |date=2025-01-11 |title=Judge orders DOJ to respond to Trump co-defendants' arguments about Smith report |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-doj-respond-trump-defendants-allegations-smith/story?id=117585664 |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=ABC News |language=en}}

The report was released on January 14. The collected evidence was presented with the conclusion that the DOJ could have successfully pursued a conviction:

As explained below, the Office commenced prosecution of Mr. Trump in the Election Case under both the original and superseding indictments because it concluded that the admissible evidence would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. ... the Office concluded that Mr. Trump's conduct violated several federal criminal statutes ... Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Jack |author-link=Jack Smith (lawyer) |date=2025-01-07 |title=Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8 |url=https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114061624/https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf |archive-date=2025-01-14 |access-date=2025-02-20 |website=United States Department of Justice}}{{Rp|pages=2, 68, 137}}

On February 19, Trump said that "if I would have lost [the 2024 election], my life would have been a much different life, it would have been a very nasty life", because "they were going after me".{{Cite web |last=Vlachou |first=Marita |date=2025-02-20 |title=Trump Suggests His Election Victory Granted Him A Lifeline |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-election-victory-lifeline_n_67b7089ae4b0df8bc42388ef |access-date=2025-02-20 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

On October 24, 2023, ABC News and The Guardian reported that anonymous sources have stated that Trump administration White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has received legal immunity from Jack Smith in exchange for testimony under oath and has testified before the grand jury.{{cite news |last1=Faulders |first1=Katherine |last2=Levine |first2=Mike |last3=Mallin |first3=Alexander |date=October 24, 2023 |title=Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281 |access-date=October 24, 2023 |work=ABC News}}{{cite news |last=Lowell |first=Hugo |date=October 24, 2023 |title=Trump chief Mark Meadows testified in 2020 election case after immunity order |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/trump-chief-of-staff-mark-meadows-2020-election-case-immunity |access-date=October 30, 2023 |work=The Guardian}} The next day, CBS News reported that anonymous sources have stated that Meadows is cooperating with prosecutors and has testified before the grand jury but did not state that Meadows has received legal immunity, while Meadows' attorney stated to CBS News that the ABC News report was "largely inaccurate."{{cite news |last=Novak |first=Analisa |date=October 25, 2023 |title=Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows cooperating with special counsel's Trump investigation |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-meadows-former-trump-chief-of-staff-cooperating-special-counsel-election-interference-case/ |access-date=October 26, 2023 |work=CBS News}} In their October 25 reply to the gag order stay ruling, the prosecution did not address the veracity of the ABC News report and referred to Trump's October 24 Truth Social post about the news report as "an unmistakable and threatening message to a foreseeable witness in this case."

On December 5, the government alleged in a court filing that Trump had "sent" his supporters to the Capitol. The government said it would submit evidence to demonstrate Trump's "post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters", indicating his "motive and intent."{{Cite news |last1=Hsu |first1=Spencer S. |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin |date=2023-12-05 |title=Special counsel alleges Trump 'sent' supporters on path to Jan. 6 violence |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/05/trump-jan-6-violence-election-obstruction/ |access-date=2023-12-05 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}{{Cite news |date=December 5, 2023 |title=Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC: Government's Notice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/764d097c-eeb5-473e-bf5d-3c12e524b945.pdf |access-date=December 5, 2023 |work=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |via=The Washington Post}}

In a December 5 court filing, Smith prosecutors asserted they had evidence in election day text messages between a Trump campaign employee, who is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, and a campaign attorney in Detroit. Prosecutors asserted that Trump and his co-conspirators knew Biden was taking the lead in Michigan results and sought to subvert them, with the campaign employee encouraging "rioting and other methods of obstruction." Prosecutors alleged that at the time of the text messages, "a large number of untrained individuals flooded the Detroit [ballot counting facility] and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count."{{cite news |last1=Mauger |first1=Craig |date=December 5, 2023 |title=Trump campaign staffer wanted rioting to obstruct Detroit vote counting: prosecutors |url=https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/06/trump-staffer-allegedly-urged-rioting-obstruct-detroit-absentee-vote-count-tcf-center-2020-election/71828795007/ |access-date=January 28, 2024 |work=The Detroit News}}

On December 11, the special counsel filed a brief indicating he would present an expert witness at trial who had extracted and examined data from Trump's phone from the weeks while he attempted to subvert the election. The data had been obtained from Twitter under a January 2023 search warrant.{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |date=December 11, 2023 |title=Special counsel reveals plans to use Trump's phone data at trial |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/11/special-counsel-trump-phone-data-trial-00131196 |access-date=January 28, 2024 |work=Politico}}{{cite news |last1=Cheney |first1=Kyle |date=August 18, 2023 |title=Special counsel obtained Trump DMs despite 'momentous' bid by Twitter to delay, unsealed filings show |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/special-counsel-obtained-trump-twitter-howell-00111410 |access-date=January 28, 2024 |work=Politico}}

On October 18, 2024, Smith released nearly 2,000 pages of evidence. Most pages were entirely redacted. The first volume contained excerpts of interviews by the House select committee on January 6; the second, social media posts; the third, photos of the signed fake elector certificates and a transcript of the Trump–Raffensperger call; the fourth, John Eastman's memos for a plan for Pence to reject the certification, plus public statements and fundraising emails.{{Cite web |last1=Herb |first1=Jeremy |last2=Cole |first2=Devan |last3=Lybrand |first3=Holmes |last4=Rabinowitz |first4=Hannah |last5=Fritze |first5=John |date=2024-10-18 |title=Special counsel releases trove of redacted documents in 2020 election subversion case against Trump |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/18/politics/donald-trump-special-counsel-evidence-documents-release/index.html |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=CNN |language=en}}

During "full Ginsburg" interviews on August 7, 2023, new Trump attorney John Lauro asserted "a technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law", so it was "just plain wrong" that Trump had pressured Pence to violate the law. Pence had said four days earlier that Trump and his advisers had pressured him "essentially to overturn the election".{{cite news |last1=Edelman |first1=Adam |date=August 6, 2023 |title=If Trump committed 'a technical violation of the Constitution,' it's not a crime, his lawyer says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/donald-trump-2020-election-indictment-lawyer-john-lauro-rcna98406 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230808082753/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/donald-trump-2020-election-indictment-lawyer-john-lauro-rcna98406 |archive-date=August 8, 2023 |access-date=August 8, 2023 |work=NBC News}}{{cite news |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Pence Says Trump Pushed Him 'Essentially to Overturn the Election' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/pence-trump-election-jan-6.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230808000957/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/pence-trump-election-jan-6.html |archive-date=August 8, 2023 |access-date=August 8, 2023 |work=The New York Times}}

In two court filings in late November 2023, Trump's lawyers presented possible defenses. They blamed foreign governments, arguing that "President Trump and others acted in good faith" based on falsehoods in "covert foreign disinformation campaigns relating to the 2020 election". They asked the court to consider the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., as well as other agencies, as part of the prosecution team. (Doing so would slow down the case by requiring those agencies to submit information to the court and portray the indictment as politically motivated.) Trump's team further complained that some witnesses for the prosecution may have anti-Trump "political bias".{{Cite web |last=Polantz |first=Katelyn |date=2024-01-02 |title=Trump defense strategy in January 6 case may go beyond trying to delay trial, court filings reveal |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/politics/trump-defense-strategy-january-6/index.html |access-date=2024-01-02 |website=CNN |language=en}}

The Trump campaign responded to the indictment with a press release, accusing President Joe Biden of political persecution and claiming that it was election interference.{{Cite news |last1=Singh |first1=Maanvi |last2=Chao-Fong |first2=Léonie |last3=Stein |first3=Chris |date=August 1, 2023 |title=Trump faces four criminal counts as six co-conspirators listed in January 6 indictment – live |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-jan-6-jack-smith-biden-us-politics-live-updates |access-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801132157/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-jan-6-jack-smith-biden-us-politics-live-updates |url-status=live }} The Trump campaign issued a statement calling the indictment "reminiscent of Nazi Germany".

In an interview that Fox News aired on September 1, 2024, Trump said: "Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it." He added that "my poll numbers go up" because of being indicted for the interference.{{Cite web |last=Chowdhury |first=Maureen |date=2024-09-02 |title=Live updates: Trump, Harris election news |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-09-02-24#h_c49f84227b644b54a9de97764d977c62 |access-date=2024-09-02 |website=CNN |language=en}} Two weeks before Trump won the 2024 presidential election,{{Cite news |date=2024-11-06 |title=Trump wins the US Presidency |url=https://apnews.com/live/trump-harris-election-updates-11-5-2024 |accessdate=2024-11-06 |publisher=AP News}} he said in a radio interview that, were he to take office, "I would fire him [Jack Smith] within two seconds."{{Cite web |last1=Chowdhury |first1=Maureen |last2=Shelton |first2=Shania |last3=Williams |first3=Michael |last4=Sangal |first4=Aditi |date=2024-10-24 |title=Live updates: Harris rallies with Obama in Georgia as Trump campaigns in Arizona |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-trump-election-10-24-24#cm2ncfys9000n3b5vz7egekku |access-date=2024-10-24 |website=CNN |language=en}}

• Mike Pence, who was Trump's vice president and, at the time, was also running for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election, issued a statement strongly condemning Trump, stating that this indictment was "an important reminder [that] anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States".{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4132531-pence-condemns-trump-on-jan-6-indictment-country-is-more-important/|title=Pence condemns Trump on Jan. 6 indictment: 'country is more important'|work=The Hill|date=August 1, 2023|access-date=August 2, 2023|last=Fortinsky|first=Sarah|archive-date=August 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802040050/https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4132531-pence-condemns-trump-on-jan-6-indictment-country-is-more-important/|url-status=live}} In an interview with reporters at the Indiana State Fair the next day, he expanded on his comments, stating that he could not have overturned the election results as vice president.{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4133918-pence-on-jan-6-crackpot-lawyers-told-trump-what-his-itching-ears-wanted-to-hear/|title=Pence on Jan. 6: 'Crackpot lawyers' told Trump 'what his itching ears wanted to hear'|work=The Hill|date=August 2, 2023|access-date=August 2, 2023|last=Samuels|first=Brett|archive-date=August 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802200051/https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4133918-pence-on-jan-6-crackpot-lawyers-told-trump-what-his-itching-ears-wanted-to-hear/|url-status=live}}
• Former U.S. attorney general William Barr said the case against Trump was legitimate and that he will testify if he is called.{{Cite web |last=Visser |first=Nick |date=August 7, 2023 |title='A Legitimate Case': Barr Says He Would Testify In Trump's Jan. 6 Trial If Called |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-barr-testify-trump-jan-6_n_64d07d66e4b01638f324399c |access-date=August 7, 2023 |website=HuffPost |language=en |archive-date=August 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807094933/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-barr-testify-trump-jan-6_n_64d07d66e4b01638f324399c |url-status=live }}
• Adam Kinzinger, a member of the January 6 Committee and a former Illinois representative, tweeted that "Today is the beginning of justice" and added that Trump is "a cancer on our democracy".{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/01/jan-6-select-committee-applauds-donald-trump-election-interference-indictment/70510283007/|title='Quite parallel:' Jan. 6 committee applauds Trump Capitol attack indictment|last1=Looker|first1=Rachel|last2=Jackson|first2=David|website=USA Today |date=August 1, 2023|access-date=August 2, 2023|archive-date=August 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802015421/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/01/jan-6-select-committee-applauds-donald-trump-election-interference-indictment/70510283007/|url-status=live}}
• Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said Trump "swore an oath to the Constitution, violated his oath & brought shame to his presidency."{{Cite web |first=Sudiksha |last=Kochi |date=August 2, 2023 |title='A disgrace': Donald Trump's 2020 election indictment sparks split among Republicans |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/02/donald-trump-indictment-republican-2024/70512718007/ |access-date=2023-09-01 |website=USA Today |language=en-US}}
• Former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who was running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination at the time, said "Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding our nation's highest office again."{{Cite web |last=Fortinsky |first=Sarah |date=2023-08-15 |title=Hutchinson: Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding presidency again |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4153080-hutchinson-says-trump-has-disqualified-himself-from-holding-presidency/ |access-date=2023-09-01 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}
• On August 14, 2023, nearly a dozen former judges and federal legal officials, all appointed by Republicans, submitted an amicus brief saying they agreed with Jack Smith's proposed trial date of January 2, 2024.{{Cite web |last1=Gangel |first1=Jamie |last2=Forrest |first2=Jack |date=August 14, 2023 |title=Exclusive: Former Republican legal officials endorse special counsel's speedy trial date proposal in Trump Jan. 6 case |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/politics/republican-legal-officials-trump-interference-case/index.html |access-date=August 14, 2023 |website=CNN Politics |language=en |archive-date=August 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230814184253/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/politics/republican-legal-officials-trump-interference-case/index.html |url-status=live }} The brief states "There is no more important issue facing America and the American {{nowrap|people{{px2}}{{mdash}}{{px2}}}}and to the very functioning of {{nowrap|democracy{{px2}}{{mdash}}{{px2}}}}than whether the former president is guilty of criminally undermining America's elections and American democracy in order to remain in power [...]".

• Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida who was also running for the 2024 presidential Republican nomination, tweeted that he would "end the weaponization of government, replace the FBI director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all Americans" if elected. He also voiced agreement with the defendant's claim that the charges were politically motivated. In addition, DeSantis has previously expressed his intention to pardon Trump if he were to win the presidency.{{cite web |last1=Pengelly |first1=Martin |title=From victim to 'distraction': reactions to Trump's indictment fall along political divide |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/donald-trump-indictment-reaction-political-divide-desantis-pelosi |website=The Guardian |access-date=August 2, 2023 |date=August 2, 2023 |archive-date=August 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230802064340/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/donald-trump-indictment-reaction-political-divide-desantis-pelosi |url-status=live }}
• Then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy wrote on Twitter that House Republicans would "continue to uncover the truth about Biden Inc. and the two-tiered system of justice."{{cite news |last1=Hodgman |first1=Lucy |title=Lawmakers quickly react to latest Trump indictment |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/01/lawmakers-respond-to-latest-trump-indictment-00109294 |access-date=August 2, 2023 |work=Politico |date=August 1, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=August 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230801235431/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/01/lawmakers-respond-to-latest-trump-indictment-00109294 |url-status=live }}
• With a looming September{{nbsp}}30 deadline to fund the government for the coming fiscal year starting October{{nbsp}}1, some House Republicans had proposed leveraging their power of the purse to try to stop the federal and state prosecutions of Trump, though a federal shutdown would not affect the prosecutions.{{cite news |last1=Kapur |first1=Sahil |title=A shutdown wouldn't halt Trump's trials, so Republicans seek to rein in his prosecutors |publisher=NBC News |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/shutdown-wouldnt-halt-trumps-trials-republicans-seek-rein-prosecutors-rcna102152 |date=August 29, 2023 |access-date=2 November 2023 }}

• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in a joint statement with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said "No one is above the law{{snd}}including Donald Trump".
• House members Nancy Pelosi, Joaquin Castro and Rashida Tlaib also came out in support of the indictment.
• Following Trump's reelection in 2024, former House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler complained that "Merrick Garland wasted a year" before appointing the special prosecutor in late 2022. Though Garland might have acted more quickly using the same evidence that the January 6 House select committee was using, he "only started the prosecution after he was in effect forced to by the report of the Jan. 6 committee and the criminal referral". With an earlier start to the indictment, Nadler imagined, "I think he [Trump] would have been convicted and we’d have a different president now."{{Cite web |last1=Delaney |first1=Arthur |last2=Bobic |first2=Igor |date=2025-01-04 |title='Fatal Mistake': Democrats Blame DOJ As Trump Escapes Accountability For Jan. 6 |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/january-6-doj-trump_n_67783f7ce4b0f0fdb7b19d36 |access-date=2025-01-04 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

• Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)
• Fischer v. United States (2024)
• Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia
• Indictments against Donald Trump
• Presidential eligibility of Donald Trump
• Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York
• Trump fake electors plot
• Trump v. Anderson (2024)

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{Cite book |last1=Bowden |first1=Mark |last2=Teague |first2=Matthew |author-link1=Mark Bowden |year=2022 |title=The Steal: The Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election and the People Who Stopped It |location=New York City |publisher=Grove Press |isbn=978-0-802-15996-0}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Leonnig |first1=Carol |last2=Rucker |first2=Philip |author-link1=Carol D. Leonnig |author-link2=Philip Rucker |year=2021 |title=I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump's Catastrophic Final Year |location=New York City |publisher=Penguin Random House |isbn=978-0-593-29895-4}}

• [https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits "Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign"] June 3, 2024 by ProPublica
• {{Cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf |title=United States of America v. Donald J. Trump |date=August 1, 2023 |publisher=United States Department of Justice |via=The Washington Post |access-date=August 1, 2023 |ref={{Harvid|United States Department of Justice|2023}}}}
• {{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/01/us/politics/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html |title=The Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated |date=August 1, 2023 |last1=Savage |first1=Charlie |last2=Goldman |first2=Adam |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 1, 2023 |ref={{Harvid|The New York Times|2023}}}}
• {{Cite AV media |people=Jack Smith |date=August 1, 2023 |title= Complete statement from Special Counsel Jack Smith on Trump Indictment |type=News conference |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDpdlw0kmBw |access-date=August 3, 2023 |publisher=C-SPAN |via=YouTube}}
• [https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf Final Report on the Special Counsel's Investigations and Prosecutions Volume One]
• Case docket for [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/ United States v. Trump, 1:23-cr-00257 (main case), (D.D.C.)] at CourtListener.
• Case docket for [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67891889/united-states-v-donald-trump/ United States v. Donald Trump, 23-3190 (gag order appeal), (D.C. Cir.)] at CourtListener.
• Case docket for [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68073028/united-states-v-donald-trump/ United States v. Donald Trump, 23-3228 (presidential immunity appeal), (D.C. Cir.)] at CourtListener.
• Case docket for [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a745.html United States v. Donald Trump, 23A745 (presidential immunity appeal), (SCOTUS)]; [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf SCOTUS writ of certiorari]
• [https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim SCOTUS presidential immunity appeal oral arguments audio]
• [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf SCOTUS presidential immunity appeal oral arguments transcript]
• [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf SCOTUS presidential immunity appeal opinion]
• {{cite episode|title=Democracy on Trial|series=Frontline|series-link=Frontline (American TV program)|network=PBS|station=WGBH-TV|season=42|number=11|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/democracy-on-trial/|access-date=February 3, 2024}}
• {{cite report|last=Garvey|first=Todd|date=July 5, 2024|title=Presidential Immunity from Criminal Prosecution in Trump v. United States|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11194|access-date=July 10, 2024}}
• {{cite report|last=Berris|first=Peter G.|date=July 10, 2024|title=Fischer v. United States: Supreme Court Reads Federal Obstruction Provision Narrowly in Capitol Breach Prosecution|publisher=Congressional Research Service|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11126|access-date=July 10, 2024}}

{{January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox}}

{{Legal affairs of Donald Trump}}

{{Donald Trump}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:2023 controversies in the United States

Category:2023 in United States case law

Category:2023 in American politics

Category:2023 in Washington, D.C.

Category:August 2023 in the United States

Category:Donald Trump litigation

Category:Donald Trump prosecutions

Category:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Category:Conspiracy to defraud the United States case law

Category:January 6 United States Capitol attack

Category:Donald Trump controversies

Category:First Trump administration controversies

Category:Democratic backsliding in the United States

Category:Election case law

Category:Fraud in the United States

Category:Conspiracy (criminal)

Category:Conspiracy to defraud the United States

Category:Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Category:Rudy Giuliani

Category:Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign

Category:2020 United States presidential election

Category:Prosecutions of presidents of the United States

Category:Jack Smith (lawyer)

Category:Indictments

Category:Controversies of the 2024 United States presidential election

Category:Articles containing video clips