Donald Trump's comments about Letitia James couldn't possibly violate a gag order against making public statements about court staff because she is not court staff. On top of that, Donald Trump's Supreme Court Justices indicated earlier this year that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be construed to protect social media users from legal liability for links they share to content created by other people, so when hearing the latest accusations against Trump involving link sharing this author knew right away that the only way one could hold him legally liable for such conduct would be with an unconstitutional gag order of some sort connected to a pre-existing court case. Trump posted a short message (https://truthsocial.com/realDonaldTrump/posts/111247592804913306) with a link to an article by Laura Loomer which contains a government document containing an address alleged to belong to New York Attorney General Letitia James. You can find a link to Loomer's article among the data above the body of this article.
Donald Trump did more than just share a link in this case. Back in March we discussed why Trump could not be held legally liable for allegedly threatening Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg by sharing a link to an article featuring an image of Trump holding a bat looking towards the left where the content creator added a picture of Bragg (https://copblaster.com/blast/49989/donald-trump-falsely-accused-of-threat-for-sharing-link-on-truthsocial). We will let that article do the talking as to why sharing a link to someone else's work doesn't attach liability for the work to the person sharing it. We next turn to Trump's comment which couldn't possible violate the gag order in his civil case despite how some people construe gag orders as blanket prohibitions on speech.
Donald Trump included the following statement with his link to Loomer's article:
"Her Fake Case against me should be dropped immediately! My Financial Statements are extremely conservative, and her numbers were way off, including the fact that she undervalued Mar-a-Lago and Doral by Billions of Dollars. She also didn't reveal the 100% Disclaimer Clause at the front of the Financial Statements, and that she sued me under a Statute that was never used before. MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE!"
That statement appears to fall outside the scope of Justice Arthur Engoron's gag order issued earlier this month. Engoron's order was in response to a post attacking Engoron's clerk. The clear target of the order was speech targeting members of Engoron's staff as made clear by Engoron himself, "Consider this statement an order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any members of my staff," so Trump probably didn't violate the gag order with his statement simply because Letitia James is not a member of Justice Engoron's staff (see https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/trump-gag-order-social-media-threat/index.html) . Engoron would likely have to issue another order targeting speech directed at James personally or law enforcement tied to the case in some way. Letitia James is employed by the state of New York as the state's attorney general while Justice Engoron and his staff are employed by the New York State Unified Court System. Even though both entities are subdivisions of the state government they're two separate distinct government agencies. They're also considered different branches of government in this country with the courts being part of the judicial branch and law enforcement being part of the executive branch. See United States v. Alvarez (https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/separation-powers-action-us-v-alvarez), "The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law)."
As an elected official, being criticized publicly is part of James' job. It would be hard to craft a constitutional order barring Trump or any other defendant from speaking critically of a state's attorney general. The link to a page containing the official's home address likewise does not violate the law nor could a constitutional law be crafted to bar such conduct. There are some laws on the books in some states permitting civil lawsuits against those who leak personal information but for such claims be recognized in court the information can't come from a government source because federal courts across the country have consistently held that the government does not have a compelling interest in limiting the dissemination of information the government itself made publicly available in the first place (see Publius v. Boyer-Vine https://casetext.com/case/publius-v-boyer-vine). Loomer broke no enforceable law by publishing the document containing James' address likewise nobody could possibly violation a constitutional law by sharing a link to her work.
Conclusion
A court order barring a defendant from speaking about court staff could not possibly be construed to bar criticism of a state's attorney general. The people are free to copy and distribute government documents due to the government lacking any legitimate self interest in censoring information made publicly available by the government. Absent an unconstitutional order barring the dissemination of such information there are no orders in Trump's New York cases barring him from such speech.