Which criminal charges has Donald Trump faced and what are their potential prison sentences?
Executive summary
Donald J. Trump has been the subject of four major criminal prosecutions since 2023—two state and two federal—encompassing 88 felony counts across investigations into alleged hush-money payments, classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago, efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Washington, D.C., and efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 result; the statutory maximum sentences across those charges range from a few years per count up to 20 years on some federal obstruction and tampering counts, although practical sentencing outcomes and legal interruptions have dramatically altered how those maximums translate into real exposure [1] [2] [3].
1. New York hush‑money conviction — falsifying business records, 34 counts, statutory exposure and outcome
The Manhattan prosecution charged Trump with 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records related to alleged hush‑money payments; each count is a New York felony that carries a maximum of four years and, on paper, the counts could be sentenced consecutively for a theoretical maximum of 20 years, but in practice the judge imposed an unconditional discharge—meaning no prison, probation, or fines—after the jury conviction, and Trump has been pursuing appeals and other legal challenges to the conviction and sentencing [2] [4] [5] [6].
2. Federal classified‑documents case — Espionage Act and obstruction‑related counts, high statutory maxima
The federal indictment tied to classified materials at Mar‑a‑Lago included Espionage Act counts and allegations of obstruction and concealment; under the statutes cited in reporting the Espionage Act counts carry a maximum of 10 years apiece, while related tampering and concealment charges have statutory maximums of 20 years, and scheme/false‑statement counts set separate five‑year maxima—legal analysts stress that statutory maximums overstate typical sentences and that sentencing guidelines and unprecedented factual circumstances will govern any actual term [5] [3].
3. Federal Jan.‑6 / D.C. indictment — election‑interference and obstruction counts
In the Washington, D.C., indictment tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, prosecutors charged Trump with multiple counts including conspiring to defraud the United States and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding; reporting and guides to the four major cases summarize those counts but emphasize the complexity of statutory penalties and that some of the alleged offenses carry multi‑year maximums—how those translate into exposure depends on convictions, count aggregation and whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently [2] [7].
4. Georgia statewide case — “fake electors,” forgery, impersonation, false statements, varied penalties
Georgia prosecutors charged Trump and co‑defendants in a multi‑count indictment that included racketeering‑style allegations and a series of state offenses tied to a so‑called “fake electors” scheme; specific Georgia counts reported include conspiracy to commit forgery (punishable in some formulations by roughly one to seven‑and‑a‑half years), impersonating a public officer (about one to two‑and‑a‑half years), and false statements (one to five years), with state law and prosecutors’ approach determining how counts aggregate and whether higher penalties—such as racketeering exposures reaching longer terms—apply [1] [7].
5. Reality check: statutory maxima versus practical exposure, immunity and procedural pauses
Across these cases the public tally of statutory maximums (from four years per New York falsifying count to 20 years for certain federal tampering counts and 10 years for Espionage Act counts) provides ceiling figures but not a reliable forecast of actual prison time—judges apply sentencing guidelines, defendants may be first‑time, non‑violent offenders, appeals and constitutional claims (including presidential‑immunity arguments) have stayed or altered proceedings, and one high‑profile conviction ended with an unconditional discharge, illustrating how legal, political and logistical factors can nullify or reduce theoretical exposure [4] [3] [8] [5].