The fee request, if awarded by the presiding judge, would be paid from the Fulton County District Attorney’s office budget. Willis’ office has separately challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia law that enables the claim, arguing it violates separation of powers and imposes an unlawful financial burden on an elected constitutional officer.
ATLANTA — President Donald Trump filed a motion Wednesday seeking $6,261,613.08 in attorney fees and costs from the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, invoking a Georgia law that allows defendants to recoup legal expenses when a prosecutor is disqualified for misconduct and the case is subsequently dismissed.
The filing comes roughly two months after the election interference case against Trump and 18 co-defendants was dismissed, following Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ removal from the case over an “appearance of impropriety.”
“In accordance with Georgia law, President Trump has moved the Court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in his defense of the politically motivated, and now rightfully dismissed, case brought by disqualified DA Fani Willis,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment on Trump’s filing.
The fee-shifting law
The Georgia statute under which Trump’s motion was filed states that when a prosecutor is disqualified from a case because of improper conduct and the case is then dismissed, any person charged is entitled to request “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred” in their defense. The presiding judge reviews the request and is responsible for awarding the fees and costs, which are to be paid from the budget of the prosecutor’s office.
How the case unraveled
Willis obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others from a grand jury in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a scheme to illegally overturn Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included a call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to defeat Biden. Four people pleaded guilty in the months following the indictment.
Willis’ removal stemmed from her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case. Defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest, alleging that Willis personally profited from the case when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took together. Willis and Wade both testified about the relationship at an extraordinary hearing in February 2024, maintaining that their romance did not begin until after Wade was hired and that they split costs for vacations and other outings.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee rebuked Willis in a March 2024 order, saying her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he did not find a disqualifying conflict of interest, ruling that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned — which the special prosecutor did hours later.
Defense attorneys appealed that ruling. The Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The Georgia Supreme Court declined to hear Willis’ appeal in September 2025.
The nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council was then tasked with finding a new prosecutor. Its executive director, Pete Skandalakis, took on the case and dismissed it less than two weeks later, in November.
Willis office’s constitutional challenge
When another defendant in the case filed a similar fee request last month, Willis’ office filed a motion asking to be heard on any such claims — and raised constitutional objections to the fee-shifting law that would govern them.
“The statute raises grave separation-of-powers concerns by purporting to impose financial liability on a constitutional officer, twice elected by the citizens of Fulton County, for the lawful exercise of her core duties under the Georgia Constitution,” her office’s motion says.
The motion also argues the law violates due process by “retroactively imposing a novel fee-shifting scheme” that creates a substantial burden for county taxpayers without recourse. Willis’ office contends the prosecution “was neither arbitrary nor political” and was based on an “exhaustive investigation spanning years,” noting that a special grand jury reviewed evidence and recommended charges before a regular grand jury issued the indictment.