Within hours of Donald Trump requesting a stripped-down protective order — narrower than one sought by prosecutors in the federal 2020 election criminal case against the former president — special counsel Jack Smith rejected the revised proposal, leading to a quick decision by the presiding judge to order a hearing.

An eight-page reply from Smith’s team argued the court should stick with the government’s broader array of suggested rules to stem the disclosure of evidence for the trial rather than consider the limiting tweaks offered by Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to charges over an alleged effort to overturn the results of the last presidential contest. The filing recites quotes from Trump’s defense counsel in various TV appearances claiming Smith’s proposed rules would suppress helpful information from making its way to the press.

“The central purpose of criminal discovery is to provide the defendant with materials necessary to prepare for a fair trial. To facilitate the efficient production of discovery to the defense, the Government proposed a reasonable protective order consistent with current practice in this District,” Smith team said.

“The defendant instead proposed an order designed to allow him to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom. To safeguard witness privacy and the integrity of these proceedings, the Court should enter the Government’s proposed protective order,” the reply added.

Trump’s lawyers filed their response to Smith’s proposed order just before the deadline at 5 p.m. ET after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is based in Washington, D.C., denied their request for an extension over the weekend.

The Trump legal team asked that the government’s the proposed order be narrowed to “shield only genuinely sensitive materials from public view” or else their client may be restricted from discussing non-sensitive, potentially exculpatory evidence and could be precluded from seeking the help of “volunteer attorneys” or others “without paid employment arrangements.”

Trump’s lawyers also warned that the government seeks to restrict Trump’s First Amendment rights in a case about First Amendment rights and claimed that President Joe Biden has already “capitalized” on the indictment, pointing to a re-election campaign social media post showing him drinking from a “Dark Brandon” coffee mug hours before Trump was arraigned. Like Biden, Trump is running a 2024 campaign for another term in the White House.

Prosecutors filed the request for a protective order last week, explaining that “much” of the evidence they planned to share with Trump’s legal team contained “sensitive and confidential information” and the disclosure of grand jury transcripts or other information “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Smith’s team raised concerns about Trump’s posts to social media regarding “witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” and said if the former president “were to begin issuing public posts using details — or, for example, grand jury transcripts — obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.” Prosecutors specifically made reference to a post Trump made to his Truth Social account on Friday, writing in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

In their filing on Monday, Trump’s legal team requested a hearing on the matter so that the “parties may fully discuss each redline, in sequence, and address any concerns the Court may have.” The response from Smith’s team argued, “No oral argument is necessary,” and concluded that the court “should enter the Government’s proposed protective order.”

“The Government has proposed a standard, reasonable order that will streamline the flow of discovery to the defendant while preserving the integrity of these proceedings,” Smith’s team said. “The defendant has proposed an unreasonable order to facilitate his plan to litigate this case in the media, to the detriment of litigating this case in the courtroom. Normal order should prevail.”

After the back-and-forth on Monday, Chutkan ordered both sides to communicate and settle on two dates and times for when they are available for a hearing to take place no later than Friday.

Trump, who faces multiple criminal indictments on both the federal and state levels — including charges in another, documents-related case brought by Smith — has broadly denied any wrongdoing while claiming he is the target of a “witch hunt.”

The Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro offered his thoughts on retiring women’s soccer star Megan Rapinoe and her less-than stellar performance at the World Cup — which resulted in a loss to Sweden and an early exit from the competition.

At particular issue for most was a penalty kick — which Rapinoe whiffed, handing Sweden the win — and the striker’s awkward response to the loss, which appeared to at least initially be laughter.

Conservatives mocked the outspoken player — who is best known outside of soccer circles for her blue hair, her protest of the American national anthem, and demands for “equal pay” despite the women’s team delivering far less market value than the men’s.

“All righty. So Megan Rapinoe, one of most irritating people on planet Earth,” Shapiro said by way of introduction. “She had an opportunity to push the United States women’s national soccer team into the next round. Now, she’s most famous for having blue hair and also for really hating America. I mean, the national anthem is bad and America is a deeply sexist and racist place, even though they’re paying her way too much money to play a sport no one has ever watched, except once every four years when we all pretend to be interested in women’s soccer and all the rest of it.”

“Well, Rapinoe apparently had a penalty shot and she missed and the United States lost and they got booted by Sweden. And bizarrely enough, she started kind of laughing and smiling after she missed the shot,” Shapiro continued. “And she didn’t miss by a little, she missed by like a lot.”

Shapiro went on to note that he didn’t really fault her for having a “weird” initial reaction, saying that people often handle horrible news in ways that seem strange in the moment.

“So I’m not going to blame her for like laughing and then crying. People do react in weird ways to bad situations. If you’ve ever had to tell somebody truly horrible news, you don’t know what to do,” he said. “So I get that.”

“The part about Megan Rapinoe that is annoying is that she’s Megan Rapinoe,” he continued, pointing to her postgame interview and the fact that after playing and winning in international competition, the part of her career that stood out most was scoring a point for “equal pay.”

Shapiro concluded with his final assessment of Rapinoe, saying the real problem wasn’t what she did in her last World Cup appearance — no matter how dismal that may have been — but who she was as a person.

“Again, the problem with Megan Rapinoe is not that she missed a penalty shot. A lot of people miss penalty shots. The problem is not that she reacted weirdly. When that happens, when bad stuff happens, bad stuff happens,” he explained. “The problem with Megan Rapinoe, is that she’s kind of a terrible person and that she’s spent her entire career pressing for the idea that America is a terrible, horrible place that has made her extraordinarily wealthy and famous for playing a sport that no one cares about worldwide.”

“So that’s — that’s that. And we bid a not particularly fond farewell to Megan Rapinoe. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

WATCH: