The judge found that Trump violated the gag nine times in recent weeks.

By Ben Feuerherd and Erica Orden

04/30/2024, 9:49am ET

Donald Trump was held in contempt by Justice Juan Merchan Tuesday morning for social media posts and other statements the former president made that violated a gag order imposed in his Manhattan criminal case.

The judge ordered Trump to pay a $9,000 fine — $1,000 for each violation. And he warned Trump that additional violations could land him in jail.

“Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment,” the judge wrote in an eight-page decision.

Though prosecutors didn’t seek jail time for Trump’s violations, they told the judge during a contempt hearing last week that Trump appeared to be “angling” for such a punishment.

Before the hush money trial began in mid-April, the judge issued a gag order that bars Trump from publicly commenting about likely witnesses, jurors and other people involved in the case.

Prosecutors accused Trump of repeatedly violating the gag in the days leading up to the trial and during the trial itself. Trump posted social media messages attacking people including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer who is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution.

Prosecutors sought to hold Trump in contempt for 14 alleged violations of the gag order. Merchan held a hearing last week on prosecutors’ contempt motion. On Tuesday, the judge ruled on 10 of the alleged violations, holding Trump in contempt for nine of them.

Another contempt hearing on the remaining four alleged violations is set for Thursday.

“Defendant violated the Order by making social media posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal proceeding and by making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding,” Merchan wrote in his Tuesday decision.

Though Trump’s lawyers had argued that several of the posts in question were “reposts” or remarks made by other people, and therefore shouldn’t be considered Trump’s own commentary, Merchan rejected that argument, finding that “a repost, with or without commentary by the Defendant, is in fact a statement of the Defendant.”

“Defendant curated the posts at issue and then took the necessary steps to publish the posts on his Truth Social account and on his campaign website,” Merchan wrote. “In doing so, he endorsed the posts with one purpose in mind — to maximize viewership and to communicate his stamp of approval.”

He added: “there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Defendant's intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own.”