Donald Trump has canceled his plans to testify in his own defense in his civil fraud trial, the former president said in a statement Sunday.

"I will not be testifying on Monday. MAGA!" Trump wrote on social media.

Trump cited the testimony of his expert witnesses, the use of what he called his "ironclad disclaimer clause," and alleged bias by the judge overseeing the case as reasons he no longer planned to testify.

"I HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO EVERYTHING & HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY OTHER THAN THAT THIS IS A COMPLETE & TOTAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE," he wrote.

The former president was due to return to the courtroom Monday after testifying last month in the state's case.

New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov will have to return to court on Tuesday to conclude his testimony, after his direct examination ran longer than expected.

After Bartov's direct examination concluded, state attorney Louis Solomon began his cross-examination -- but the parties agreed to adjourn for the day and resume the cross-examination next week.

Donald Trump is scheduled to be the only witness on Monday.

Once Bartov concludes his testimony, New York Attorney General Letitia James plans to present a brief rebuttal case.

The defense's accounting expert, Eli Bartov, was paid approximately $877,500 for his expert analysis, the New York University professor testified.

Bartov said he was paid an hourly rate of $1,350 for 650 hours of work, receiving payments from the Trump Organization and Trump's Save America PAC.

The state's lone expert witness, Michiel McCarty, was paid roughly $350,000 for his testimony.

Bartov's testimony about his compensation followed a tense exchange in which defense attorney Alina Habba accused Judge Engoron of "wasting time and money" by ignoring expert testimony.

"Why are we wasting our time if nobody is considering the words coming out of our experts' mouths?" Habba said.

The second day of testimony from the defense's expert accounting witness prompted an argument between attorneys for the two sides over the basic question of what the case is about -- leading defense lawyers to make their fourth unsuccessful request for a directed verdict to end the trial.

The arguments came toward the end of direct testimony by accounting expert defense Eli Bartov, who asserted the New York attorney general's case lacked merit because there was no evidence of any fraud on Trump's statements of financial condition, and that any errors about the values of Trump's properties were unintentional and therefore immaterial.

When the defense attempted to question Bartov about those values, state attorneys objected -- prompting defense attorney Christopher Kise to leap from his seat.

"If they don't call anyone to dispute our values, how have they proven their case?" Kise said.

Judge Arthur Engoron, in a pretrial ruling, already decided that Trump conducted a decade's worth of business using fraudulent financial statements, and state attorney Kevin Wallace suggested that Bartov's findings do not change those findings.

"You can't use false statements in business. That's what the summary judgment decision is all about. I think it is pretty much what the rest of this case is about," Engoron said in response to Kise's question.

Kise argued that if the attorney general doesn't prove what Trump's asset values should have been, the case is a "completely rudderless ship" that needs to be "moored to some sort of standard."

"You can't just say it's a misstatement because you feel like it," Kise argued.

"The standard is truth," Engoron responded.

The exchange prompted Trump's legal spokesperson, Alina Habba, to make the defense's fourth motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Engoron is "wasting our time" if he won't consider their expert testimony.

"They have not proven their case. They haven't," Habba said in her request for a directed verdict.

"Denied," Engoron said within seconds of the request, without hearing a response from lawyers for the New York attorney general.

An attorney for Judge Arthur Engoron also filed in support of the gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, arguing that violent threats have increased since the gag order was lifted.

The limited gag order, which prohibited Donald Trump and his attorneys from publicly commenting about Engoron's staff, was issued by the judge last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media. Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's First Department stayed the order on Thursday, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

Engoron's filing includes a report from Charles Hollon of the Judicial Threats Assessment Unit of the New York State Court System's Department of Public Safety. According to the report, Engoron and his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, have been inundated with credible, violent and antisemitic threats since Trump began criticizing Greenfield.

"The threats against Justice Engoron and Ms. Greenfield are considered to be serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative," Hollon wrote in the report.

Greenfield has been the victim of daily doxing of her personal email address and phone number, receiving dozens of calls, emails and social media messages daily, according to Hollon. Approximately half the harassing messages have been antisemitic, according to Greenfield.

In the report, Hollon wrote that Engoron was the subject of credible threats before the trial had started, but Trump's Oct. 3 Truth Social post directed at Greenfield exponentially increased the number of threats directed at her.

The report included multiple examples of voicemails that were left on the telephone in Engoron's chambers.

Hollon said the messages have created an "ongoing security risk" for Engoron, his staff and family, but that the gag order had been effective in lowering the number of threats.

"The implementation of the limited gag orders resulted in a decrease in the number of threats, harassment and disparaging messages that the judge and his staff received," Hollon said in the report. "However, when Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased."

Engoron's lawyer, Lisa Evans, said the threats detailed in Hollon's affirmation justify the gag order, which functions as a reasonable limit on free speech.

"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from limiting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff," Evans wrote.

Trump's reply to the filing is due on Nov. 27, after which the First Department will decide whether to fully lift the gag order.