Fact check: What are the specific allegations in the 34 felony charges against Donald Trump?

1. What prosecutors in New York actually charged — paper trail and payments that disguise a political motive

New York prosecutors brought 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to alleged reimbursements and false entries used to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels that prosecutors say was intended to influence the 2016 election. The indictment alleges that payments were routed through Michael Cohen and recorded as legal retainer or other business expenses to hide their political purpose, a scheme prosecutors claim amounts to falsified records designed to obscure the true nature of the transaction ^{[2] [1]}. The New York case centers on the ledger entries, who approved them, and whether the entries falsely described the purpose of expenditures.

2. How prosecutors framed motive: campaign benefit versus routine business bookkeeping

Prosecutors in the New York indictment linked the recordkeeping to an effort to protect the 2016 campaign, arguing the payments were intended to suppress negative information and thereby benefit the campaign, transforming ordinary business entries into criminal falsifications. Defense accounts and some reporting emphasize that the entries were bookkeeping decisions and dispute the claim that the payments were campaign-related — an evidentiary tug-of-war prosecutors must resolve by showing intent to deceive through the records ^{[2] [4]}. The central legal question is whether the records were falsified to conceal a crime or were ordinary, albeit misleading, corporate accounting.

3. Plea status and courtroom posture: not guilty pleas and competing narratives

Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to the 34 counts in the New York case, contesting the allegations and framing the entries as lawful or mischaracterized, while prosecutors pursue the theory that the records were falsified to cover the hush-money scheme. The sources show the formal arraignment posture and early pretrial stage where factual disputes — who authorized payments, who drafted entries, and what those entries meant — are front and center. The not-guilty plea preserves the constitutional presumption of innocence while setting the stage for evidentiary fights over documents, testimony, and witness credibility ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Broader landscape: other investigations and how they differ from the 34-count indictment

Other probes described by sources pursue different alleged misconduct, notably federal investigations into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and Georgia’s state inquiry into election-related actions that may involve racketeering or impersonation charges. These probes focus on conspiracy, solicitation to violate oaths, and impersonation distinct from falsified business-record counts. Reporting indicates that the New York counts are narrow bookkeeping allegations tied to a specific 2016 payment, whereas federal and Georgia matters allege broader schemes to influence elections or official acts ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Outcome-oriented reporting vs. contemporaneous charge descriptions — noting divergent timelines

Some later reporting asserts convictions while earlier sources document indictments and pleas; for instance, a subsequent headline states Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts, which would postdate the initial arraignment reporting and reflects a consequential shift from indictment to verdict. The sources in the packet include an indictment description (2025-09-19) and later trial updates (2026-01-01) that, if accurate, represent a change in legal status from charged-and-pleading-not-guilty to a conviction. Tracking dates is crucial: early accounts detail the charges ^{[1] [2]}, while later reporting reports trial outcomes ^[5].

6. Evidence themes prosecutors emphasize and defense challenges they will face

Prosecutors emphasize documentary records, reimbursement trails to Michael Cohen, and testimony tying entries to the hush-money payment as evidence that the records were falsified with wrongful intent. The defense challenges include attacking witness credibility, offering alternative explanations for bookkeeping language, and disputing the nexus between payments and campaign activity. Sources indicate the prosecution’s strategy is documentary and transactional, while the defense will aim to undermine inferences about intent, casting the record entries as legitimate business or attorney-fee transactions rather than criminal concealment ^{[2] [4]}.

7. Why distinctions between cases matter: legal theory, venue, and potential penalties

The distinction between falsifying business records and election-interference or racketeering allegations matters because they involve different legal elements, venues, and potential penalties. State falsified-records charges require proof the entries were made with intent to defraud or to conceal another crime, while election-related or RICO claims require proof of broader conspiratorial conduct or systemic wrongdoing. Sources illustrate that the 34-count New York indictment rests on accounting entries and intent, whereas other inquiries aim at patterns of conduct across actors and time ^{[2] [1]}.

8. What remains to be resolved and why follow-up reporting is essential

Key unresolved questions include witness testimony outcomes, how juries interpret intent, and whether appeals or parallel prosecutions alter the legal picture. The available sources give detailed charge listings and early trial posture, but subsequent reporting could change the factual record significantly — convictions, acquittals, or dismissals would reshape legal consequences. Continued, date-stamped reporting is necessary to map the transition from indictment to verdict and to reconcile differences between sources reporting charges versus trial outcomes ^{[1] [5] [4]}.