Fact check: What is the current status of the sexual assault investigations involving Donald Trump?

1. What the sources actually allege — hush money conviction and sentencing that follow a sexual‑encounter allegation

The documents repeatedly state that a New York trial resulted in a guilty verdict on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to payments connected to Stormy Daniels, and that a sentencing date was set for November 26, 2024. These items frame that conviction as tied to bookkeeping for payments rather than a direct sexual‑assault prosecution, and they note possible collateral consequences for voting or firearms rights stemming from a felony conviction ^{[1] [3]}. The supplied reporting therefore links criminal liability to record‑keeping, not to sexual‑assault charges.

2. Broader criminal landscape: multiple indictments but different charges and jurisdictions

The analyses report that Trump faced four separate indictments spanning New York state, federal courts in Florida and Washington, D.C., and a Georgia state case related to alleged election subversion. Each indictment reflects distinct legal theories—hush money/bookkeeping in New York, classified documents in Florida, obstruction in D.C., and election‑related charges in Georgia—so the prosecutorial focus is fragmented across jurisdictions and subject matter rather than converging on a sexual‑assault investigation in the documents provided ^{[2] [4]}.

3. The Stormy Daniels matter: payment, inference, and legal outcome versus criminal sexual‑assault claims

The materials show that Stormy Daniels’ allegations about a sexual encounter were the factual background for payments whose recording produced the falsifying‑records charges, but they do not present an indictment for sexual assault itself. The legal conclusion in the New York case was criminal liability for how payments were recorded, not a finding or prosecution on sexual‑assault statutes per the supplied analyses. That distinction matters legally: a bookkeeping conviction can stem from efforts to conceal a payment’s purpose without proving the underlying alleged conduct criminally ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Jeffrey Epstein coverage: context and reputational scrutiny, not new charges against Trump

One source summarizes scrutiny of Donald Trump’s past social and professional interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing public and media attention rather than announcing new criminal proceedings against Trump tied to sexual abuse allegations. The reporting places their relationship in a reputational and investigatory context that increased after Epstein’s arrest and death, but the provided text does not document an active sexual‑assault probe of Trump linked to Epstein in these analyses ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Timing and source framing: publication dates and retrospective reporting

Several of the supplied pieces carry October 2025 publication dates while reporting on events with earlier legal milestones such as a November 26, 2024 sentencing date. This demonstrates that the sources are retrospective summaries of prior convictions and indictments rather than breaking updates about new sexual‑assault charges. Readers should note that the chronology in these documents treats the New York verdict and sentencing as completed events that are being recounted, not ongoing new investigations ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

6. Where the provided materials are silent — gaps you should notice

None of the supplied analyses assert that prosecutors have an active criminal sexual‑assault investigation against Donald Trump distinct from the hush‑money bookkeeping case or tied directly to Epstein beyond reputational scrutiny. That silence is meaningful: an absence of reported sexual‑assault indictments in these pieces means the current status in the provided data does not include an active, publicly reported sexual‑assault prosecution of Trump ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for readers seeking clarity amid partisan reporting

Based solely on the given documents, the most supportable statement is that Trump faces a mix of convictions and indictments in multiple jurisdictions—most concretely a New York conviction for falsifying records related to payments tied to Stormy Daniels, and several other indictments on separate matters—while allegations about sexual misconduct remain in the background as context or reputational scrutiny, not as newly reported criminal sexual‑assault charges in these analyses ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.