Have any court filings or indictments in 2025–2026 sought asset forfeiture against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Civil court actions in New York stemming from the state attorney general’s fraud case sought disgorgement and steps that could lead to seizure of Donald Trump’s assets — actions that were stayed or altered through appeals and bond orders — while the corpus of reporting provided here contains no evidence of a federal or state criminal indictment in 2025–2026 that affirmatively sought criminal asset forfeiture against Trump [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows active civil enforcement posture by New York authorities through 2024–2025 and an appellate development in August 2025 that changed the outcome of the civil penalty [2] [1].
1. The New York civil case: disgorgement and the mechanics of potential seizure
New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil fraud lawsuit culminated in a judge’s order requiring disgorgement of hundreds of millions of dollars — a remedy that functions like a forced return of ill-gotten gains and can precipitate steps to seize assets if not satisfied — and her office filed county-level judgments to enable collection actions on property in Westchester and elsewhere [1] [3]. Courts in such civil proceedings can impose monetary disgorgement and enter judgments that permit enforcement against property, and reporting at the time documented deadlines and bond conditions tied to whether state officials could proceed with seizures [2] [3].
2. Appeals, bonds and a 2025 appellate ruling that altered the landscape
Trump successfully obtained a stay and a reduced bond requirement in early 2024 that blocked immediate asset seizures while appeals proceeded, and Reuters reported the stay and reduced bond explicitly as the mechanism that prevented New York from taking steps to seize property in March 2024 [2]. Later appellate activity culminated in an August 2025 decision that, according to the reporting compiled here, upheld liability but voided the disgorgement penalty as excessive — a ruling that undercuts the state’s ability to enforce the originally ordered monetary forfeiture [1].
3. No documented criminal forfeiture filings in 2025–2026 in the supplied reporting
Among the sources provided there is discussion of civil asset judgments and of administrative and policy moves related to enforcement and fraud, including later federal-level institutional changes, but none of the supplied items reports a criminal indictment in 2025–2026 that sought criminal asset forfeiture against Donald Trump [4] [5]. The materials include tracking resources and commentary about legal fights involving the president and administration actions, yet they do not document a prosecutor filing a criminal forfeiture count or a criminal seizure order against Trump in the 2025–2026 period covered here [5] [6].
4. How the distinction between civil disgorgement and criminal forfeiture matters
Civil disgorgement and post-judgment collection actions by a state attorney general are different legal beasts from criminal forfeiture pursued alongside a conviction; the sources show New York pursued civil remedies (disgorgement and judgments enabling collection) and that procedural maneuvers — bonds and appeals — were decisive in delaying or limiting seizure practicalities [1] [2] [3]. That distinction matters because civil remedies can be sought without a criminal indictment and are governed by different legal standards and appellate routes, which is reflected in the materials summarized here [1] [2].
5. Alternative narratives and remaining limits of the record
Some commentary and advocacy sources discuss the politics and potential for aggressive asset-seizure strategies in high-profile cases, and federal policy shifts around fraud enforcement are noted in White House and watchdog reporting, but the supplied documents do not demonstrate a contemporaneous criminal forfeiture filing against Trump in 2025–2026; absent additional reporting, it cannot be asserted that none existed beyond these sources [4] [7]. Readers should note that the strongest, clearly documented instance here is the New York civil disgorgement order and subsequent appellate developments, not a criminal forfeiture indictment [1] [2].
Conclusion
Based on the reporting provided, civil court filings in New York sought large-scale monetary disgorgement and the state took steps that could have led to asset seizures if the judgments stood and bonds were not posted, but an August 2025 appellate decision altered the penalty; the materials supplied do not show any criminal indictment in 2025–2026 that expressly sought criminal asset forfeiture against Donald Trump [1] [2] [3] [4].