Only one reason: fear.

The reason for this highly unusual step seems deeper than analysts are looking. On one hand, protecting a national security secret might justify a gag order, but there is none here.

Jury pools are continuously exposed to public information, thus methodically sifted in "voir dire," a process that assures jurors selected will be "fair and impartial."

Gagging a defendant is never done for that reason, no matter how well-known the defendant is. See if you can find a case recently, even historically, to silence a defendant protesting his innocence.

Nor is a gag order sought, let alone granted, because a prosecutor fears the defendant will speak publicly about his innocence and try to defend himself or herself to the public.

Far from it, defendants are typically told by their own counsel NOT to speak openly since anything said could be used against them by the prosecutor, no matter the allegations.

Notably, the federal prosecutor here, Mr. Jack Smith, was previously censured by the US Supreme Court (9-0) for misapplying federal law, specifically for political overreach.