However, the court allowed Trump to speak about Special Counsel Jack Smith, and slightly eased restrictions on discussing witnesses compared to the original gag order.

The court's ruling, delivered by Judges Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Bradley Garcia—all appointed by Democrats—emphasizes the risk of Trump's public statements affecting the integrity of the upcoming criminal trial.

While the gag order aims to protect the fairness of the trial and the safety of individuals involved, Trump retains the right to criticize President Joe Biden, the Justice Department, and to defend his innocence.

This decision follows a recent similar restriction in New York, where Trump is also barred from negatively commenting on court staff in a separate civil fraud case.

Trump, who has indicated plans to appeal the ruling, is accused of using public remarks to intimidate witnesses, including high-profile critics from his presidency. Despite the prohibition, Trump can still discuss these individuals in contexts unrelated to their expected testimony.

The court rejected Trump's request to delay his criminal trial until after the 2024 presidential election, underscoring that the rule of law applies equally to all defendants, including those seeking political office.

The appeals court maintained that the gag order is necessary to prevent interference with the case, only restricting comments intended to materially disrupt the proceedings.