New York Attorney General Letitia James has initiated the process of seizing one of former President Donald Trump’s properties as part of her efforts to enforce a $464 million fine imposed on him in a civil fraud case. The attorney general, who campaigned on “getting Trump,” has vowed to seize Trump’s properties if he fails to pay the fine.
On March 6, James registered the $464 million judgment against Trump in Westchester County, making it easier for her to seize Trump’s 140-acre Trump National Golf Club Westchester and Seven Springs estate, both located in the New York suburb, if he does not pay the fine by Monday.
Judgments against the Trump Organization, as well as Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, have also been filed in the county.
“The amount of the judgment, with interest, exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude,” Trump’s lawyers said. “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our efforts to obtain a bond for the Judgment Amount for Defendants for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented.”
Trump’s attorneys have requested court approval for a reduced $100 million bond, arguing that securing the full amount is practically impossible due to the limited availability of bonding companies willing to provide such a large bond. They have stated that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a challenge under the circumstances.
James has reiterated her readiness to seize Trump’s properties and other assets if he fails to pay the fine by the deadline. She has indicated that if Trump lacks funds to pay off the judgment, she will seek court approval to enforce judgment enforcement mechanisms and seize his assets.
Former Acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker and other legal experts have urged Trump to challenge the fine on 8th Amendment grounds, citing concerns about excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Whitaker highlighted the constitutional protections against such penalties and predicted that the fine would likely be lowered or overturned based on 8th Amendment principles.
