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 legal or financial arrangements did Michael Cohen negotiate for the Falwells?
Executive summary
Michael Cohen has said he negotiated with people holding compromising photographs of Jerry and Becki Falwell in 2015 and helped block their release; Cohen later suggested that favor could be “called in” to aid Donald Trump’s campaign, though he did not explicitly say Falwell’s 2016 endorsement was a direct quid pro quo [1] [2]. Falwell and his spokespeople have denied any quid pro quo; reporting shows Cohen described arranging to meet with an attorney for the person holding the photos and later discussed the episode on recorded calls and in his memoir [3] [1] [4].
1. What Cohen says he did — a fixer who intercepted a threat
Michael Cohen has told reporters and recounted in recorded conversations that in 2015 the Falwells approached him after someone obtained “racy” or “personal” photographs and demanded money; Cohen said he flew to Florida and met with an attorney for the person who had the pictures to prevent their publication [3] [5]. Multiple outlets report Cohen claimed to possess one of the photos and described the images as “terrible” and private, and he characterized his actions as squashing a potential public release [3] [6].
2. Did Cohen negotiate payments or a legal contract? — Reporting focuses on intervention, not written deals
Available reporting describes Cohen’s intervention as meeting with an attorney for the holder of the photos and persuading them to stop publication; none of the cited accounts documents a publicly disclosed payment, written settlement, or formal legal contract negotiated by Cohen on the Falwells’ behalf [3] [6] [4]. News reports emphasize Cohen’s role in blocking dissemination rather than detailing specific financial or contractual terms in those dealings [5] [7].
3. The political angle: Cohen’s suggestion of a future favor vs. Falwell’s denials
Cohen wrote and spoke about thinking his involvement would be a “catch and kill” style favor that he could “call in” later for “the Boss” (Donald Trump), implying a possible political utility to the relationship; Reuters and other outlets quoted Cohen tying his assistance to access that could help secure Falwell’s endorsement for Trump in 2016, though Cohen did not state definitively that the endorsement was explicit consideration for the photo suppression [1] [2]. Jerry Falwell Jr. and spokespeople have repeatedly denied any quid pro quo, with Falwell saying the endorsement was “no quid pro quo” and the Trump White House calling Cohen unreliable [1] [8].
4. Independent corroboration and the limits of the record
Reporting rests largely on Cohen’s own statements (including a taped conversation with Tom Arnold and passages in his memoir) and contemporaneous denials; outlets like Reuters, CNN, CBC, Business Insider and The Hill have recounted the same core claims and denials [1] [6] [5] [4] [7]. None of the provided sources includes independently produced documentary evidence—such as contracts, bank records, or court filings—showing the terms of a payment or a formal legal agreement between Cohen (or the Falwells) and the holders of the photos [3] [6]. Therefore the public record in these sources documents the intervention but not concrete transactional proof.
5. Competing narratives and credibility issues
Cohen is a central source for these claims but is also a convicted felon who has pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and other crimes; reporters and the Trump team have noted his criminal record and motivations, and the White House at times called him “disgraced” and “unreliable,” which complicates assessment of his claims [1] [5]. Conversely, Falwell’s denials may be self-interested given reputational stakes; Reuters quoted Falwell rejecting any link between Cohen’s help and his endorsement of Trump [1]. Major outlets present both Cohen’s account and Falwell’s rebuttal side-by-side [1] [6] [4].
6. What we can reliably say from these sources
From the available reporting, Cohen says he intervened in 2015 to stop the release of intimate photos involving the Falwells and met with the attorney for the person holding those photos; he later suggested that this intervention could be used as leverage in a political context, but he did not present documentary evidence of payment or an explicit quid pro quo, and Falwell denies the endorsement was in exchange for Cohen’s assistance [3] [1] [4]. The public record cited here lacks clear transactional documents or independent proof of specific legal or financial arrangements beyond Cohen’s account and subsequent reporting [5] [7].
7. Why this matters and what to watch for
The episode matters because it intersects private damage-control, possible campaign influence, and credibility questions about key actors; readers should watch for any follow-up reporting that produces contract copies, bank records, or corroborating testimony beyond Cohen’s statements and Falwell’s denials, because current sources report the intervention but do not document formal written agreements or disclosed payments [3] [1].