By Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney and longtime fixer to President Donald Trump, is now alleging that New York prosecutors pressured him to tailor his testimony to fit predetermined narratives in the high-profile cases brought against his former boss.
In a Substack post published Friday, Cohen said his cooperation with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office was marked by what he described as sustained coercion aimed at securing convictions and judgments against Trump.
From the time I first began meeting with lawyers from the Manhattan DA’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office in connection with their investigations of President Trump, and through the trials themselves, I felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump.
My first meeting with prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s Office was in August 2019, when I was a little over three months into serving a three-year prison sentence following my guilty plea to committing federal crimes. As later came out during President Trump’s criminal trial, one of the very first questions I asked those prosecutors was how I would benefit from cooperating. The reason was simple: I wanted to do whatever I could to obtain my Rule 35(b) motion, return home to my family and resume my fractured life.
About thirteen months later, in September 2020, due to good behavior and the COVID-19 pandemic, I was released from federal prison and permitted to serve the remainder of my term; which ended in November 2021, in home confinement. After my release, I continued to meet with prosecutors and hoped that, in exchange for my cooperation, my home confinement and later my supervised release sentence would be shortened.
During my time with prosecutors, both in preparation for and during the trials, it was clear they were interested only in testimony from me that would enable them to convict President Trump. When my testimony was insufficient for a point the prosecution sought to make, prosecutors frequently asked inappropriate leading questions to elicit answers that supported their narrative.
He added that the pressure crossed institutional lines. “I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking. Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook.”
Cohen’s claims come as both New York cases against Trump remain tied up in post-trial litigation, writes The New York Post. In Bragg’s criminal prosecution over alleged hush money payments, Trump was convicted but received an unconditional discharge in January 2025, avoiding jail time, fines, or probation. Legal efforts continue to shift or overturn aspects of that conviction in federal court. In a separate civil fraud case brought by James, Trump was hit with a $454 million judgment for allegedly inflating asset values, a ruling that is also under appeal.
Cohen acknowledged that his initial cooperation was driven by self-interest following his own federal conviction and prison sentence for tax evasion, bank fraud, and lying to Congress. But he now contends that prosecutors showed little interest in evidence that cut against their theories.
Explaining why he is speaking out now, Cohen pointed to ongoing appellate scrutiny of the cases, arguing that it has exposed deeper problems in how they were constructed. “You may reasonably ask why I am speaking out now. The answer is simple. I have witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative,” he wrote.
The New York case has been lambasted from both the right and the left. The Washington Post‘s associate editor, Marcus, for example, called the charged “a dangerous leap on the highest of wires.”
Trump’s greatest Republican nemesis, Mitt Romney, agreed, he accused Brigg’s of overreaching and playing politics. In a statement, the Utah senator said, “I believe President Trump’s character and conduct make him unfit for office. Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda. No one is above the law, not even former presidents, but everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. The prosecutor’s overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.
Cohen concluded with a broader warning about the justice system itself. “Justice must be more than effective; it must be credible. When politics and prosecution become indistinguishable, public trust erodes.”
Representatives for Bragg and James did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Cohen’s allegations. During the trials, Cohen served as a central witness against Trump, testifying about asset valuations in the civil case and payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the criminal matter. Trump has repeatedly dismissed Cohen as a “proven liar,” citing his past false statements and admissions that he once stole from the Trump Organization.
[Read More: Who’s Paying For These Protests?]
