By the New York Times style desk

A New York judge has rejected an emergency request by Donald Trump to block enforcement of a sweeping civil fraud judgment, a decision that could expose some of his most prominent properties to potential seizure if payment is not secured.

The ruling stems from a civil fraud case brought by Letitia James, in which Mr. Trump and affiliated entities were found liable for systematically inflating property values to obtain favorable loans while reporting lower values for tax purposes. The court ordered Mr. Trump to pay more than $450 million in penalties and interest, one of the largest judgments ever imposed in a New York civil fraud case.

Under New York law, defendants seeking to pause enforcement of a judgment while appealing must post a bond covering the full amount. Mr. Trump’s legal team argued that posting such a bond was impossible and asked the court to intervene, warning that enforcement would cause irreparable harm. The judge was unpersuaded.

In sharply worded language, the court rejected the request, describing the arguments as legally baseless and emphasizing that difficulty in securing a bond does not exempt a losing party from standard enforcement rules. The judge noted that financial institutions’ reluctance to accept Mr. Trump’s assets as collateral stemmed directly from the court’s finding that those asset valuations were fraudulent.

With no bond in place, the ruling clears the way for enforcement actions by the attorney general’s office. According to people familiar with the process, authorities have begun inventorying assets tied to Mr. Trump’s business empire. Properties that could be subject to action include 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, the Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, and Trump Tower itself—assets long central to Mr. Trump’s public image as a real estate magnate.

The court took pains to address claims of political motivation, stressing that the outcome followed a full trial, extensive evidence and established law. “This is not persecution,” the judge wrote in substance, underscoring that Mr. Trump was afforded due process, lost on the merits, and has not satisfied the judgment.

Mr. Trump has denounced the case as a partisan attack and vowed to appeal. His allies argue that enforcement would be unprecedented and destabilizing. Legal experts, however, say the situation is unusual primarily because of the defendant’s prominence, not because of the law being applied.

“This is what happens when a judgment debtor doesn’t pay and can’t secure a bond,” said one former New York prosecutor. “The rules are the same whether the defendant is famous or not.”

Beyond the immediate financial consequences, the ruling strikes at a narrative Mr. Trump has cultivated for decades: that of a billionaire dealmaker whose wealth and acumen set him apart. The court’s findings—and the market’s apparent refusal to rely on his valuations—have raised questions about that image at a moment when Mr. Trump remains a dominant figure in national politics.

What happens next will depend on how quickly the attorney general moves and whether Mr. Trump can still secure financing to forestall enforcement. For now, the message from the court was clear. In the judge’s view, this case is not about politics or personality, but about accountability—and about a judgment that, having been entered, must be enforced.