NEW YORK: Donald Trump won鈥檛 make his own closing argument after all in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge鈥檚 insistence that the former president stick to 鈥渞elevant鈥� matters and 鈥渘ot deliver a campaign speech.鈥�

Judge Arthur Engoron nixed Trump鈥檚 unusual plan on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments.
The judge had initially indicated he was open to the idea, saying he鈥檇 let Trump speak if he agreed to abide by rules that apply to attorneys鈥� closing arguments. Among other things, Engoron wanted the former president and current Republican front-runner to promise he wouldn鈥檛 assail his adversaries in the case, the judge or others in the court system.
Trump鈥檚 legal team said those limitations unfairly muzzled him. When Engoron didn鈥檛 hear from them by a Wednesday deadline, the judge told them he assumed Trump was not agreeing to the restrictions and therefore would not be speaking.
鈥淢EAN & NASTY,鈥� Trump wrote of the judge鈥檚 decision on his Truth Social platform. Trump indicated he will still attend Thursday鈥檚 court proceeding and reiterated his desire to 鈥減ersonally do the closing argument.鈥�
The trial could cost Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and strip him of his ability to do business in New York. He鈥檚 fighting allegations that his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.
The former president denies any wrongdoing, and he has lambasted the case as a 鈥渉oax鈥� and a political attack on him. The judge is a Democrat, as is New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the lawsuit.
The trial came after Engoron decided, in a pretrial ruling, that Trump had engaged in fraud for years. The judge ordered at that point that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president鈥檚 properties, but an appeals court has put that order on hold.
The trial concerns remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. Engoron will decide the verdict.
It鈥檚 extremely uncommon for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. But Trump鈥檚 lawyers had signaled privately to the judge last week that the ex-president planned to deliver a summation personally, in addition to arguments from his legal team. James鈥� office objected, saying that the proposal would effectively amount to testimony without cross-examination.
In an email exchange filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the request, saying he was 鈥渋nclined to let everyone have his or her say.鈥�
But he said Trump鈥檚 remarks would have to stay within the bounds of 鈥渃ommentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.鈥�
Trump would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, 鈥渃omment on irrelevant matters鈥� or 鈥渄eliver a campaign speech鈥� 鈥� or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were 鈥渇raught with ambiguities, creating the substantial likelihood for misinterpretation or unintended violation.鈥� Engoron said that they were 鈥漴easonable, normal limits鈥� and would allow for comments on the attorney general鈥檚 arguments but not personal attacks.
Kise termed the restrictions 鈥渧ery unfair.鈥�
鈥淵ou are not allowing President Trump, who has been wrongfully demeaned and belittled by an out of control, politically motivated attorney general, to speak about the things that must be spoken about,鈥� the attorney wrote.
鈥淚 won鈥檛 debate this yet again. Take it or leave it,鈥� the judge shot back, with an all-caps addition saying he wouldn鈥檛 push back an already extended and imminent deadline to resolve the matter. The deadline passed without a response from Trump鈥檚 lawyers.
Earlier in the exchange, the judge also denied Kise鈥檚 request to postpone closing arguments until Jan. 29 because of the death Tuesday of Trump鈥檚 mother-in-law, Amalija Knavs. The judge expressed condolences but said he was sticking to the scheduled date, citing the security and logistics required for Trump鈥檚 planned visit to court.
Taking on a role usually performed by an attorney is dicey for any defendant, and summations are a last chance to try to show how the evidence from the trial has or hasn鈥檛 met legal requirements for proving the case.
A closing argument isn鈥檛 constrained to the question-and-answer format of testimony. But 鈥渋t鈥檚 absolutely not a free-for-all,鈥� said Christine Bartholomew, a University at Buffalo School of Law professor who specializes in civil procedure.
鈥淯nless you鈥檙e legally trained 鈥� the chance of a misstep is really, really high,鈥� she said, adding that it鈥檚 鈥渆xtra-risky鈥� when a judge has already taken issue with a defendant鈥檚 conduct during the case.
Trump ran afoul of Engoron after making a disparaging social media post about the judge鈥檚 law clerk on the trial鈥檚 second day. The post included a false insinuation about the clerk鈥檚 personal life.
Engoron then imposed a limited gag order, barring all participants in the trial from commenting publicly about court staffers. The judge later fined Trump a total of $15,000, saying he鈥檇 repeatedly violated the order. Trump鈥檚 defense team is appealing it.
During the recent email exchange about Trump鈥檚 potential summation, Engoron warned Trump鈥檚 lawyers that if the former president violated the gag order, he鈥檇 be removed from the courtroom and fined at least $50,000.
Trump testified in November, sparring verbally with the judge and state lawyers as he defended himself and his real estate empire. He later considered but ultimately decided against a second round of testimony, explaining that he had 鈥渘othing more to say.鈥�