Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the current criminal cases against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has been involved in multiple criminal matters since 2023; available reporting shows four principal criminal matters that have moved through different stages — a Manhattan “hush‑money” conviction that was later reviewed and its sentence discharged, a Fulton County (Georgia) election‑interference indictment now overseen by a new prosecutor, a federal election‑obstruction prosecution that was dismissed when he became president, and other related federal and state proceedings that have been paused, appealed, or revisited [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Coverage differs on outcomes and next steps: some cases were dismissed or paused after the 2024 election, others remain active and under new review [2] [4] [3] [6].
1. The Manhattan “hush‑money” conviction: guilty verdict, sentence discharged, appeal and federal review
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to alleged hush‑money payments; he was sentenced to an unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025, and his lawyers have appealed the conviction and sought relief tied to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision — including asking that evidence of official acts be excluded — while a federal appeals court has ordered further review of whether the New York matter belongs in federal court [1] [2] [7] [5].
2. Fulton County, Georgia: sprawling state RICO indictment now with a new prosecutor
Fulton County’s sweeping indictment — charging Trump and 18 co‑defendants under state RICO and alleging a conspiracy to unlawfully change the 2020 Georgia result — has been the longest‑running state criminal matter; after procedural challenges the local district attorney, Fani Willis, was disqualified from prosecuting and Peter (Pete) Skandalakis announced he would take control of the prosecution and review the indictment, with the authority to dismiss or pursue charges [3] [6] [8]. Reporting notes co‑defendants have pleaded not guilty and that Skandalakis previously chose not to bring charges in a related matter, which signals he may exercise broad discretion here [6] [8].
3. Federal election‑related prosecution (Special Counsel) — dismissed when Trump returned to office
The federal case alleging efforts to obstruct the 2020 election (Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution) was dismissed without prejudice after Trump’s 2024 election victory because Department of Justice policy generally declines to prosecute a sitting president; earlier court proceedings listed significant pretrial motion activity, but the dismissal meant the indictment did not proceed while he served as president [4]. Lawfare and other outlets summarize that the two federal cases were dismissed after the 2024 election and that the Special Counsel later issued a report asserting evidence sufficient for conviction, which has shaped ongoing legal argument and appeals [2] [4].
4. How these cases overlap with immunity, appeals and presidential responsibilities
The interplay between the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision and the criminal matters against Trump is central in many filings: defense teams argue immunity or that evidence of official acts should have been excluded, and appeals courts have asked trial judges to reassess how that immunity ruling affects evidence and proper jurisdiction — particularly in New York — while the dismissal of federal prosecutions after his election illustrates how presidential status can change prosecutorial posture [5] [7] [4].
5. What remains unresolved and why reporting differs
Available sources show divergent statuses: Manhattan produced a conviction then unconditional discharge and active appeals [1] [2] [7]; federal election obstruction was dismissed after the 2024 election but the special counsel’s report still asserts sufficient evidence [4]; Georgia remains pending and was recently placed under a new prosecutor who can dismiss or continue the case [3] [6] [8]. Sources differ on whether cases are “active” or “paused” because of legal technicalities (disqualification, dismissal without prejudice, presidential immunity) rather than a straightforward guilty/not‑guilty timeline [2] [4] [6].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in coverage
Local prosecutors and reform advocates emphasize the rule‑of‑law rationale for pursuing alleged election crimes; defense teams and some commentators frame prosecutions as politically motivated or procedurally flawed, citing immunity rulings and judicial errors [3] [7] [5]. News outlets and legal trackers (Lawfare, Reuters, CNN, Georgia Recorder) stress different implications — e.g., Reuters and Georgia Recorder highlight Skandalakis’s power to dismiss and his prior discretion in related probes, while Lawfare and BBC focus on the sequence of federal dismissals and the New York conviction and appeals [6] [8] [2] [9].
Limitations: this briefing relies exclusively on the provided reporting; available sources do not mention the full docket entries or any post‑November 14–17, 2025 filings outside these articles, and thus do not cover any developments reported elsewhere (not found in current reporting).