Michael Cohen, once the longtime personal attorney to President Donald Trump and later one of his most prominent critics, has now made a striking claim about the legal cases brought against his former boss. In a new public statement, Cohen alleges that New York prosecutors repeatedly pressured him to deliver testimony that fit a predetermined narrative aimed at securing judgments and convictions against Trump.
Cohen made the claims in a lengthy post published on his personal Substack page, where he described his interactions with attorneys from both the New York Attorney General’s office and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. According to Cohen, from the very beginning of his cooperation with state investigators, he felt there was little interest in objective fact-finding and significant pressure to support outcomes prosecutors had already decided upon.
Allegations of Coercion and Leading Testimony
Cohen claims that while working with prosecutors connected to Attorney General Letitia James and District Attorney Alvin Bragg, he was consistently steered toward testimony that would strengthen their respective cases against Trump and his businesses.
He wrote that prosecutors appeared uninterested in information that complicated or contradicted their legal theories. When his answers did not align with what they were seeking, Cohen says investigators would redirect him through pointed, leading questions designed to elicit more favorable responses.
According to Cohen, this pattern was evident both during preparation sessions and during courtroom proceedings. He alleges that prosecutors focused narrowly on extracting statements that could be used to advance fraud allegations in the civil case and criminal charges in the Manhattan prosecution.
Cooperation Under Pressure
Cohen acknowledged that he chose to cooperate with authorities while facing his own serious legal exposure, a reality that placed him in a vulnerable position. He said that the implicit promise of leniency or favorable consideration weighed heavily on him as he navigated the legal process.
In his account, Cohen suggests that this dynamic created an environment where resisting prosecutorial pressure felt risky. When his testimony did not sufficiently support the prosecution’s arguments, he claims prosecutors pushed harder, reframing questions until answers fit their desired conclusions.
While Cohen has previously testified against Trump and publicly accepted responsibility for his own wrongdoing, his latest statements suggest he now believes the process itself was compromised by political motivations.
Claims Extend to Attorney General’s Civil Case
Cohen’s criticism was not limited to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. He also took aim at the New York Attorney General’s office, pointing to Letitia James’ public statements prior to assuming office.
Cohen noted that James campaigned openly on a promise to pursue Trump, a fact he says shaped the tone and direction of the civil investigation from the outset. According to Cohen, investigators made it clear that they expected his testimony to support that goal.
He argues that this political backdrop blurred the line between law enforcement and political ambition, creating an atmosphere where outcomes mattered more than impartial analysis of evidence.
A Shared Strategy, Cohen Says
In his remarks, Cohen portrayed James and Bragg as operating from what he described as a common strategy, despite leading separate offices. He claims both used high-profile cases involving Trump to raise their national profiles and present themselves as the officials who finally held the former president accountable.
According to Cohen, this pursuit of political capital came at the expense of prosecutorial neutrality. He suggests that the drive to secure headline-grabbing victories overshadowed the obligation to ensure testimony was free from coercion and narrative shaping.
Cohen argues that this approach risks undermining public confidence in the justice system, particularly when legal actions appear to be driven by political incentives rather than neutral application of the law.
A Complicated Messenger
Cohen’s allegations arrive with significant baggage. As a convicted felon who previously admitted to lying to Congress and other crimes, his credibility has long been a point of contention. Critics of Trump have frequently cited Cohen as an insider witness, while Trump’s defenders have argued that Cohen’s shifting positions demonstrate unreliability.
That history makes Cohen’s latest claims especially notable. While some will dismiss his statements as self-serving or revisionist, others see them as raising uncomfortable questions about how politically charged cases are handled behind the scenes.
Legal experts note that allegations of coercion and leading testimony, if substantiated, could have serious implications. However, proving such claims typically requires corroborating evidence, internal communications, or testimony from others involved in the process.
Broader Implications
Cohen’s account feeds into a wider debate about the politicization of prosecutions involving high-profile figures. Supporters of Trump have long argued that state-level cases against him were driven by partisan objectives, while critics insist the cases were justified by evidence and lawful procedure.
By claiming that prosecutors pressured him to conform his testimony, Cohen adds another layer to that controversy—one that complicates narratives on both sides. His remarks raise questions not only about specific cases, but about how incentives, publicity, and political context can shape prosecutorial behavior in cases of national importance.
As of now, neither the New York Attorney General’s office nor the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has publicly responded to Cohen’s claims. Without additional evidence, the allegations remain contested assertions from a deeply polarizing figure.
What is clear, however, is that Cohen’s latest statements will further fuel debate over whether the legal actions against Trump represented a neutral pursuit of justice or an example of politics intruding into the courtroom.