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.
Which charges are included in the 34-count indictment against Donald J. Trump in Manhattan?
Executive Summary
The 34-count Manhattan indictment charges Donald J. Trump with 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, alleging a pattern of false entries intended to conceal payments and related conduct tied to the 2016 campaign. The counts revolve around specific business records — invoices, ledger entries and checks — connected to reimbursements and a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, with prosecutors asserting the falsifications were committed to conceal unlawful activity [1] [2] [3].
1. What the public claims and documents actually say about the charges and their scope
The available summaries converge on one clear legal label: each of the 34 counts accuses Trump of First‑Degree Falsifying Business Records, a felony under New York law. Sources describe the 34 counts as discrete instances — each count tied to a specific date and a specific false entry in business records such as invoices from Michael Cohen, entries in the Detail General Ledger, and checks drawn on Trump’s accounts — alleged to have been made between February 14 and December 5, 2017. Prosecutors frame the alleged falsifications as part of a scheme to hide payments and to conceal other crimes or election-related wrongdoing. The indictment’s structure treats the counts as repeated acts of the same statutory offense rather than a variety of different charges [1] [4] [3].
2. The factual allegations the indictment highlights and the central transaction at issue
At the heart of the indictment is an alleged effort to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and related reimbursements to a lawyer, which prosecutors say were mischaracterized in corporate records as legal expenses. The materials cited in multiple summaries include invoices, checks, bank statements and witness testimony that prosecutors used to link the financial entries to an effort to suppress potentially damaging information during the 2016 campaign. Several sources say the falsified entries were meant to hide a broader scheme, including “catch-and-kill” arrangements and reimbursements to intermediaries, and that some checks were signed by Trump himself according to the indictment’s allegations [2] [4] [5].
3. Evidence presented publicly and how different outlets frame outcomes and verdicts
Reporting across the set of summaries highlights similar documentary categories — invoices, ledger entries, checks and witness testimony — but diverges on the implications and on whether the record describes a conviction versus an indictment. Some pieces present the indictment and subsequent trial developments as leading to a guilty verdict on the falsifying-business-records counts, noting jury findings and signaling historic legal consequences for a former president. Other items focus solely on the unsealed indictment text and the counts themselves without asserting trial outcomes, emphasizing that the charges were first revealed when the indictment was unsealed in April 2023 and that arraignment followed [2] [5] [6].
4. The defense stance, procedural posture, and legal context missing from some summaries
Several sources explicitly note Trump’s plea of not guilty and the broader constitutional and procedural questions the case raised, including whether falsifying business records tied to campaign-related payments implicates state election laws or federal campaign finance rules. The summaries underscore that although the counts are criminal and classified as felonies under New York law, commentators and some reports differ on the likely sentencing outcomes and on whether a conviction would translate into incarceration. The sources also reflect that the indictment focuses narrowly on New York falsification statutes, even as prosecutors frame the alleged falsifications as concealing other unlawful conduct [7] [3].
5. Where reporting differs, why it matters, and what readers should watch for next
Coverage diverges in three important ways: [8] detail level — some reports list every count’s date and document, while others summarize the scheme; [9] outcome framing — a subset of reports treats the matter as resulting in conviction, which changes the legal posture described; and [10] context emphasis — some outlets foreground the $130,000 Stormy Daniels payment and election‑influence themes, while others emphasize bookkeeping and tax implications. Readers should consult the unsealed indictment text for granular count-by-count language and watch official filings and trial records for verified developments; summaries that omit the indictment text or conflate indictment and conviction risk misleading readers about what has been legally proven versus alleged [6] [1].