Former US President Donald Trump’s legal team sought relief in a federal lawsuit filed in April 2026, arguing that there would be enough time to mount a thorough defense given the complexity of the case and the need to review extensive evidence. The defense contends that the timeline proposed by prosecutors would shortchange preparation and, as a result, jeopardize fair proceedings.
They also argued that the plan to commemorate special counsel Jack Smith on January 4, 2024, could interfere with the defense’s ability to prepare effectively. The claim is that the timing would impede the orderly development of the defense strategy and the ability to present a coherent argument at trial.
According to the defense, the government’s aim is obvious: the (former) president and his attorney were not given a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing. The court was urged to reject the government’s request and to ensure that all procedural steps respect due process. The specifics of the request highlighted concerns about the pace of the process and the potential impact on evidentiary review.
Trump himself has appeared on a television program around the same period, while the government’s discovery timeline was described as aggressive. The defense notes that the proposal pushes for a trial schedule that is potentially faster than what is typical for cases of this magnitude, raising questions about whether all parties can complete the necessary discovery, investigation, and motions within the stated four-month window from discovery to jury selection.
In addition, the defense expressed dissatisfaction with the date set by private counsel due to conflicts with other cases involving the former president. The overlapping docket items create scheduling pressures that could affect both sides. While the trial related to the adult film actress’s alleged involvement in a separate matter is set to begin in March 2024, the matter concerning the handling of classified documents continues to progress, and the investigation into alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election remains active. Georgia’s proceedings are slated for May of the same year, adding to a crowded calendar.
The defense stressed that the former president should be prepared for each of these proceedings in the coming months, noting that the cases are independently complex and demand substantial preparation and resources. They argued that many of these matters will require the president’s presence at various stages of the proceedings, depending on how the defense strategy evolves and which issues are invoked at each juncture.
Officials emphasized that the obligation to diligently prepare for any case does not diminish because other matters are ongoing. However, the court was reminded that parallel prosecutions must adhere to the unusually tight deadlines proposed by the government, and that the timetable must not undermine the integrity of the judicial process or the rights of the defense. The exchanges underscored the tension between rapid court action and the need for careful, comprehensive preparation that can withstand scrutiny at trial. The overall aim remains to balance timely adjudication with fairness and due process for all parties involved, including the former president and his legal team [citation].