Attorneys for former President Donald Trump claimed Monday evening that special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to restrict their client’s ability to release evidence in his criminal case surrounding the 2020 election represented an unlawful restriction of his free speech rights.

Smith’s prosecutors moved Friday for US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue the so-called “protective order,” saying it was needed “to produce a substantial amount of discovery to the defendant … much of which includes sensitive and confidential information.”

The prosecution proposal would have forbidden Trump, 77, or his attorneys from disclosing evidentiary materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses’ lawyers or others approved by the court.

It also would only permit the 45th president to be shown documents deemed “sensitive,” such as grand jury testimony — rather than be given them to keep.

Trump attorney John Lauro responded to the prosecution motion minutes before the 5 p.m. Monday deadline, calling the request “contrary to established law and President Trump’s First Amendment rights.”

“The government requests the Court assume the role of censor and impose content-based regulations on President Trump’s political speech that would forbid him from publicly discussing or disclosing all non-public documents produced by the government,” he argued.

Under Lauro’s so-called “redline” proposal, he argued the judge should “shield only genuinely sensitive material from public view.”

“[T]the need to protect that information,” the attorney wrote, “does not require a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government.”

A protective order differs from a gag order in that it covers information shared during discovery, whereas a gag order pertains to discussions about a case outside a courtroom.

In their motion for a protective order, Smith’s team cited a Truth Social post from Friday in which Trump wrote in all caps: “If you go after me, I’m coming after you.”

“If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” prosecutor Molly Gaston claimed in the Friday filing.

“First, the post does not contain or reference sensitive information of any kind. Rather, it is generalized political speech, not directed to this case,” Lauro responded.

Trump’s team had sought additional time to respond, which was quickly spurned by Judge Chutkan.

“Despite the extraordinarily limited time President Trump had to prepare this response, we attempted to confer with the government in good faith over the weekend by sending our proposed revisions and arranging multiple phone calls,” Lauro wrote.

“Unfortunately, the government declined a cooperative approach, refusing to provide any real-time feedback. Ultimately, just hours before our deadline, the government notified defense counsel it would oppose most of our revisions.”

At one point in the 29-page response, Lauro took at jab at President Biden, citing a “Dark Brandon” tweet that came the day of his predecessor’s arraignment last week.

“President Biden has likewise capitalized on the indictment, posting a thinly veiled reference to his administration’s prosecution of President Trump just hours before arraignment,” Trump’s attorney wrote.

Lauro proposed changes to the protective order that he argued were important for clarity, such as adjusting the definition of sensitive material to “exclude certain documents obtained outside the grand jury process.”

He also demanded a change to Smith’s definition of “authorized persons” that can view sensitive material, arguing that the former president may seek to bring on “volunteer attorneys” or other individuals to assist in his defense that are not necessarily “employed by defense counsel,” or counsel of record in the case, as the proposed order defines “authorized persons” to be. 

“The government cannot preclude the assistance of those individuals, nor should President Trump be required to seek permission from the Court before any such individual assists the defense,” Trump’s lawyer wrote. “Such a limitation or requirement would unduly burden President Trump and impede the efficient preparation of his defense.” 

Lauro contended that expanding the definition of “authorized persons” would not “appreciably increase the risk of improper disclosure” of sensitive material. 

Trump’s attorney also called for federal prosecutors to “conspicuously mark the documents it designates as sensitive” and asked the court to allow them to include “designated Sensitive Materials in any public filings without Leave of Court if all sensitive information is redacted.” 

“The parties may further file unredacted copies of any such designated Sensitive Materials under seal without further order of the Court,” Trump’s lawyer wrote in one proposed change, arguing that the modifications would keep sensitive documents out of public view and minimize “the administrative burden imposed on President Trump and the Court.”

The former president has previously hinted at plans to seek a new judge and new location for the adjudication of his latest indictment.

“WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF [sic] D.C,” Trump posted on Truth Social Sunday.

Lauro later said on a podcast that his team “haven’t made a final decision on that issue at all.”

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four-count indictment handed up last week, a 40-count indictment for alleged national security document hoarding, and a 34-count Manhattan indictment on charges of falsifying business records.