CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said he agrees with the arguments made by former President Donald Trump’s legal team during the former president’s gag order hearing.

A U.S. Court of Appeals Court panel of judges on Monday heard arguments from Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department on the former president’s appeal against Judge Chutkan’s partial gag order.

During the hearing, Judge Patricia Millet —one of the three judges— and Trump’s team pressed prosecutors on the issue of balancing their case alongside the constitutional protection of Trump’s political speech. Millet told prosecutors that the gag order poses a troubling lack of balance on the free speech side on the part of prosecutors.

Honig, during a CNN round table, said Trump’s team and Millet were right about finding a balance between what Trump could say and the protection of his free speech.

“The court has to conduct a balancing here between the First Amendment on the one hand but the district judge, [it is] the trial judge’s right and ability to protect the proceedings on the other hand. It seems clear to me … the court of appeals is not going to strike down the gag order. They’re going to leave some version of a gag order in place. But to use their terminology, they may well take a ‘scalpel to what’s there. I think they’re likely to carve it down,” Honig said. “I think specifically, we listened to the arguments, what you can see they were a little concerned with is the restriction on Trump’s ability to talk about the prosecutors. They basically said ‘why not? Prosecutors are fair game.’ At one point they said ‘Jack Smith, he’s got thick skin. He may have to take it.’ I think they’re actually right about that. So I think we could see the gag order get carved down but left in place.”

Honig had previously criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith’s initial gag order request for being too broad and ridiculous, adding that it was never going to stand.

“I think the DOJ comes in for some criticism here, because their original proposal to the judge … was ridiculous. It was way overbroad. It was way overly sensitive. They said, ‘He can’t say anything about anybody.’ That was never going to stand,”