The Department of Justice is redoubling its efforts to secure a gag order on former President Donald Trump, citing his comments about the death penalty and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. 

DOJ prosecutors made a request for a gag order earlier this month, claiming that the former president could affect the legal procedure with his aggressive public statements. 

This request has been amplified by prosecutors after Trump wrote a series of accusations on platform Truth Social, criticizing Milley's reported phone call to Chinese counterparts following the Jan. 6, 2021 protests.

TRUMP DEMANDS COURT IGNORE DOJ REQUEST FOR GAG ORDER

Trump wrote that Milley "turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads-up on the thinking of the President of the United States."

"This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!" the former president added.

Special counsel Jack Smith is pushing harder for the gag order following Trump's comments about Milley.

TRUMP COMMENT ABOUT PUNISHING GEN. MILLEY WITH 'DEATH' CAUSES MAJOR OUTCRY FROM GOP RIVALS

"The defendant should not be permitted to continue to try this case in the court of public opinion rather than in the court of law, and thereby undermine the fairness and integrity of this proceeding," prosecutors argued Friday.

The Trump team has vehemently fought requests for a gag order, claiming that it would be a violation of the former president's civil rights.

The Trump legal team published a 25-page brief to condemn the DOJ's request, citing freedom of speech and the necessity of transparency.

"The prosecution would silence President Trump, amid a political campaign where his right to criticize the government is at its zenith, all to avoid a public rebuke of this prosecution. However, ‘above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,’" the brief states.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Friday that accused Texas A&M University of racial discrimination against white and Asian men.

Richard Lowery, a white finance professor at the University of Texas, purported that the university's hiring practices were unlawful. Lowery claimed the university's hiring practices were unfair "by giving discriminatory preferences to females and non-Asian racial minorities at the expense of white and Asian men."

However, the professor never submitted a job application to Texas A&M.

Lowery wanted to leave his job at the University of Texas over disagreements with its leadership and because he faced criticism for his conservative views, court documents read, according to Fox 26. The professor believed that Texas A&M's Mays Business School would be a better work environment.

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY BUILDING MED SCHOOL TO HELP COMBAT DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Texas A&M's legal team moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Lowery did not demonstrate a legitimate legal injury since he neither applied for a job at the university nor expressed a current intention to submit an application.

U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge in Houston granted Texas A&M's motion to dismiss. The judge said Lowery could not assume ongoing discrimination at the university solely based on allegations of discriminatory practices that deterred him from applying. 

"Otherwise, any putative plaintiff could sue a potential employer without ever applying, simply upon allegation the posited discriminatory practices deterred application," the court said.

IBRAM KENDI ASSAILED BY LEFT AS ‘HUCKSTER’ ‘CHARLATAN’ AS BACKLASH TO ANTIRACISM CENTER GROWS: ‘REAL DAMAGE’

Texas A&M also sought to dismiss the lawsuit on other grounds, pointing to a recently signed law that has not yet taken effect as a reason for there to be no need for judicial intervention. The court agreed with the university regarding the new state law.

Senate Bill 17, which the governor signed into law in June, is set to take effect on January 1. The law, as the court's opinion noted, prohibits public universities from providing "preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for employment." The court also cited a Supreme Court ruling handed down this summer that ruled race-based university admissions programs unlawful.

The court in Houston ruled that Lowery's complaints about future conduct were premature since the state law would not take effect until January. The court said that, once the state law takes effect, Lowery could again pursue legal action if he believed Texas A&M's hiring practices were unlawful.